tihvavy  of  t:he  theological  ^emmarjp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

From  the  Library   of 
Benjainin  Brec^-iinricTge  Warfield 


THE    AUTHORSHIP. 


HISTORICAL    CHARACTER 


OF    THE 


FOURTH    GOSPEL. 


REV.    DR.    WILLIAM    SANBAY 

i 


*      OCT  40 1922      * 

THE  AUTHORS H I Bvr::;::7::.sivvy 


HISTORICAL    CHARACTER 


FOURTH    GOSPEL 


Considered  in  Reference  to   the  Contents   of  the  Gospel 

itself 


A    CRITICAL    ESSAY 

BY 

y 

WILLIAM    SANDAY,    M.A. 

FELLOW    OF    TRINITY   COLLEGE,    OXFORD 


MACMILLAN     AND     CO. 

1872 

\.AU  rishts  reserved] 


OXFORD: 

By  T.  Combe,  M.A.,  E.  B.  Gardner,  and  E.  Pickard  HalJ, 

PRINTERS    TO    THE    UNIVERSITY. 


IF    THIS    BOOK    DESERVE    A    DEDICATION, 
IT    SHALL    BE    TO 

THE    PRESIDENT    AND    FELLOWS    OF 
TRINITY  COLLEGE, 

WHO     HAVE     ALWAYS     BEEN 

THE    KINDEST    OF    FRIENDS    TO    ME, 

AND    FROM 

WHOSE    CLOSER    SOCIETY 

I    AM    NOW    UNWILLINGLY    PARTING. 


I 


PREFACE. 

In  looking  back  over  this  first  attempt  in  the  diffi- 
cult and  responsible  field  of  theology,  I  am  forcibly- 
reminded  of  its  many  faults  and  shortcomings.  And 
yet  it  seems  to  be  necessary  that  these  subjects 
should  be  discussed,  if  only  with  some  slight  degree 
of  adequacy.  I  cannot  think  that  it  has  not  been 
without  serious  loss  on  both  sides,  that  in  the  great 
movement  that  has  been  going  on  upon  the  continent 
for  the  last  forty  years,  the  scanty  band  of  English 
theologians  should  have  stood  almost  entirely  aloof, 
or  should  only  have  touched  the  outskirts  of  the 
questions  at  issue,  without  attempting  to  grapple  with 
them  at  their  centre. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  presume  to  do  this  :  but  I  wish 
to  approach  as  near  to  it  as  I  can  and  dare  ;  and  it 
has  seemed  to  me  that  by  beginning  upon  the  critical 
side  and  taking  a  single  question  in  hand  at  a  time 
I  might  be  not  altogether  unable  to  contribute  to 
that,  perhaps  far-off,  result,  which  will  only  be  ob- 
tained by  the  co-operation  of  many  men  and  many 
minds. 

There  is  no  limit  to  the  efficacy  of  scientific  method 
if  it  is  but  faithfully  and  persistently  applied.  If  we 
could  but  concentrate  upon  theological  questions  a 
small  part  of  that  ability  and  that  activity  which  is 

b2 


viu  PREFACE. 

devoted  in  this  country  to  practical  pursuits,  I  have 
httle  doubt  that  in  a  quarter  or  half  a  century  the 
whole  position  of  theology,  and  with  it  necessarily 
of  belief  and  practical  religion,  would  be  very  differ- 
ent from  what  it  is  now. 

In  the  meantime  it  is  of  importance  that  isolated 
historical  or  critical  questions  should  be  dealt  with, 
and  that  we  should  either  come  to  some  definite  con- 
clusion respecting  them,  or  else  at  least  see  how  far 
a  definite  conclusion  is  attainable. 

Until  the  facts  of  history  and  criticism  are  ac- 
curately determined,  speculative  systems  are  but 
castles  in  the  air.  Even  if  a  non-religious  system 
of  philosophy  should  be  destined  ultimately  to  pre- 
vail, it  will  still  have  to  give  some  account  of  religious 
phenomena,  and  must  therefore  know  exactly,  or 
with  as  much  exactness  as  possible,  what  those  phe- 
nomena are.  The  facts  of  religion  (i.  e.  the  documents, 
the  history  of  religious  bodies,  the  phenomena  of  con- 
temporary religious  life,  &c.)  are  as  much  facts  as  the 
lie  of  a  coal-bed  or  the  formation  of  a  coral  reef. 
And,  if  the  '  record  is  defective,'  that  is  no  excuse  for 
throwing  the  whole  problem  aside  as  insoluble.  A 
reasonable  man  will  enquire  how  far  the  record  is 
defective,  what  portions  of  the  problem  are  insoluble, 
what  conclusions  are  probable,  what  others  may  be 
said  to  reach  that  degree  of  probability  which  in 
practical  matters  is  called  certainty,  and  what  are  the 
legitimate  and  necessary  inferences  from  them. 

I  propose,  if  I  am  permitted,  and  the  judgment  of 
critics  on  the  present  volume  should  at  all  warrant 
me  in  proceeding,  to  carry  on  the  same  method  of 
enquiry,  first,  to  investigate  the  origin  and   compo- 


PREFACE.  IX 

sition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  finally,  to  the 
subject  of  New  Testament  theology. 

With  each  of  these  topics  I  have  already  in  the 
course  of  the  present  enquiry  been  more  or  less 
brought  into  contact,  and  upon  both  I  have  had  to 
accept  provisional  conclusions. 

With  regard  to  the  Synoptists  these  have  been  taken 
from  the  elaborate  work  of  Dr.  Holtzmann  (Die  Sy- 
noptischen  Evangelien.  Leipzig,  1863).  It  should  be 
remembered  that  Dr.  Holtzmann  does  not  stand  alone, 
but  that  for  the  greater  portion  of  his  results  (e.  g.  as 
to  the  documentary  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
the  priority  of  St.  Mark,  the  existence  of  two  main 
documents,  and  the  independent  use  of  them  by  the 
Evangelists)  he  has  the  support  of  a  majority  of 
the  best  critics  during  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years, 
including  among  these  Weizsacker,  Meyer,  RitschI, 
Weiss,  Wittichen,  and  practically  also  the  veteran 
Ewald.  These  conclusions  I  accept  temporarily,  but 
I  hope  to  be  able  to  approach  the  subject  myself 
with  sufficient  independence. 

On  points  of  theology  the  reader  will  observe,  per- 
haps, a  certain  ambiguity  of  language.  When  the 
time  comes  I  hope  that  this  may  be  removed.  But 
at  present  I  have  thought  it  best  to  adhere  as  nearly 
as  possible  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  introducing 
a  minimum  of  inference  or  comment,  until  the  various 
data  have  been  subjected  to  a  closer  analysis  and 
more  thorough  co-ordination. 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  subject  will 
find  little  in  this  work,  at  least  in  the  shape  of 
general  lines  of  thought  and  argument,  that  can  lay 
claim  to   be  considered    new.     Indeed,  so   thorough 


X  PREFACE. 

have  been  the  labours  of  German  critics  that  I  doubt 
whether  any  entirely  new  element  in  the  discussion 
is  possible.  If  there  is  anything  at  all  distinctive  in 
the  following  pages,  it  will  be  found,  perhaps,  partly 
in  the  analysis  of  the  discourses,  partly  in  the  attempt 
to  consider  the  several  hypotheses  as  to  the  author- 
ship of  the  Gospel  from  a  point  of  view  that  may  be 
called  psychological,  i.  e.  constantly  with  reference  to 
what  in  the  supposed  position  of  the  author  would  be 
psychologically  natural  and  probable.  I  cannot  but 
think  that  through  neglecting  to  do  this,  writers  of 
great  ability,  like  M.  Wittichen,  and  also  perhaps  in 
a  less  degree  Dr.  Weizsacker,  have  been  led  into  con- 
clusions which  must  really  be  seen  to  be  untenable. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  only  remind  the  reader  that 
the  object  of  the  present  essay  is  critical,  and  nothing 
more.  My  endeavour  has  been  to  state  the  facts 
plainly  and  sincerely,  and  to  draw  the  critical  in- 
ferences from  them  with  sobriety  and  care.  Beyond 
this  I  have  not  gone,  nor  could  I  have  attempted  to 
go,  without  greatly  miscalculating  my  own  powers 
and  fitness.  But  the  work  of  criticism  is  necessary, 
and  must  be  done ;  though  in  itself  it  is  obviously 
incomplete.  For  its  completion  different  and  higher 
gifts  are  needed.  And  I  shall  be  well  content  to  wait 
for  the  time,  when — non  sine  afflatu  divino — a  wor- 
thier hand  shall  be  found  to  build  either  upon  this  or 
upon  some  other  foundation. 


PREFACE.  XI 

I  have  experienced  so  much  difficulty  and  incon- 
venience myself  from  not  knowing  the  edition,  date, 
&c.,  of  works  referred  to,  that  I  have  thought  it  well 
to  give  a  roughly-classified  list  of  those  which  I  have 
principally  used,  at  the  risk  of  drawing  attention  to 
its  incompleteness.  My  object  has  been,  not  to  write 
an  exhaustive  commentary  upon  the  Gospel,  but 
merely  to  determine  two  points — its  authorship  and 
historical  character.  And  in  order  to  do  this,  it  has 
seemed  enough  to  take  certain  representative  works, 
so  far  as  possible  the  best  and  latest  in  their  respec- 
tive schools.  I  would  gladly  do  what  I  could  to 
remedy  any  serious  omission  that  might  be  pointed 
out  to  me  ;  but  I  can  hardly  think  that  anything  will 
have  been  overlooked  by  which  the  balance  of  the 
argument  generally  would  be  altered.  A  few  brief 
notes  are  added  in  explanation  of  the  position  and 
characteristics  of  those  writers  who  will  be  less  well 
known  in  England. 

I.  Writers  who  maintain  the  Johannean  authorship 
and  complete  authenticity  of  the  Gospel : — 

Alford,  Dr.  H. — Commentary  on  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment.   Vol.  i.  sixth  edition,  Cambridge,  1868. 

Caspar i^  Dr.  C.  E. — Chronologisch-geographische 
Einleitung  in  das  Leben  Jesu  Christi.  Hamburg,  1869. 
Dr.  Caspari  (who  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
Professor  of  Theology  at  Christiania)  dates  from  Geu- 
dertheim,  in  Alsace,  and  apparently  belongs  to  the 
Gallo-German  school  of  Strasburg.  He  would  seem, 
however,  to  hold  more  closely  to  the  traditional  posi- 
tion   than    other   members   of  that   school,    such    as 


xii  PREFACE. 

Reuss,  Nicolas,  Colani.  His  '  Chronological  and  Geo- 
graphical Introduction '  is  a  clear  and  careful  treatise, 
which  often  throws  new  light  on  the  subject  discussed, 
and  is  especially  valuable  for  Talmudic  illustrations. 

Ellicott,  Bp. — Hulsean  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  Our 
Lord.     Third  edition,  London,  1862, 

Westcott,  Professor,  B.F. — Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  Gospels,  third  edition,  London  and  Cambridge, 
1867. 

Wieseler,  Dr.  Karl. — Synopsis  of  the  Four  Gospels, 
translated  by  the  Rev.  Edmund  Venables,  M.  A.,  Cam- 
bridge, 1864  (the  original  appeared  in  1843).  Beitrage 
zur  richtigen  Wurdigung  der  Evangelien  und  der 
Evangelischen  Geschichte.  Gotha,  1869.  This  work  is 
a  supplement  to  the  preceding  one  ;  in  the  main  elabo- 
rately maintaining,  but  in  some  instances  retracting, 
the  views  previously  held.  The  value  of  Dr.  Wieseler's 
labours  is  already  well  known  to  the  English  public, 
both  through  his  translator  and  also  through  the 
Hulsean  Lectures  of  Bp.  Ellicott,  pp.  143  n,  244  n. 
There  are  few  works  that  more  deserve  to  be  inscribed 
with  the  German  motto,  '  Fleiss  und  Treue.' 

In  this  class  also  may  be  placed,  with  slight  quali- 
fication : — 

Liithardt^Dr.  C.  E. — Das  Johanneische  Evangelium. 
Niirnberg,  1852.  To  this  writer  also  Dr.  Ellicott  has 
paid  a  merited  tribute  of  praise,  Huls.  Lect.  p.  31,  n. 
Dr.  Luthardt's  is  not  in  a  special  sense  the  work  of 
either  a  scholar,  a  critic,  or  a  theologian  ;  but  every- 
where shows  signs  of  thought  and  care. 


rREFAC  E.  -xiu 

II.  Writers  who  maintain  Johannean  or  mediate 
Johannean  authorship  and  quahficd  authenticity,  in 
the  first  degree  : — 

Bleck,  Dr.  F. — Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament, 
herausgegebcn  von  Johannes  Friedrich  Bleek.  Zweite 
Auflage,  BerHn,  1866.  The  work  of  the  late  illustrious 
Professor  at  Bonn,  now  translated  in  Clark's  series. 
I  only  regret  that  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  refer  to 
the  work  in  which  Dr.  Bleek  has  dealt  specially  with 
many  questions  arising  out  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
'  Beitrage  zur  Evangelien-Kritik,'  published  in  1846. 
The  results,  however,  seem  to  be  given  in  the  '  Ein- 
leitung' in  sufficient  detail. 

Liicke,  Dr.  F. — Commentar  liber  das  Evangelium 
des  Johannes.  Dritte  Auflage,  Bonn,  1843.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  say  that  this  work,  the  author  of  which 
died  in  1855,  is  still  one  of  the  undisputed  classics  of 
Biblical  criticism  ;  although,  when  it  is  compared  with 
the  last  edition  of  Meyer's  Commentary,  we  see 
in  some  respects  the  advance  which  must  be  made 
merely  by  time. 

Meyer,  Dr.  H.  A.  JF.— Kritisch-exegetisches  Hand- 
buch  uber  das  Evangelium  des  Johannes.  Fiinfte 
Auflage,  Gottingen,  1869.  The  second  part  of  the 
Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  My  admiration 
for  this  masterly  commentary  daily  increases.  It  is  a 
perfect  mine  of  valuable  matter  of  every  kind — in 
scholarship  and  exegesis  unrivalled.  Dr.  Meyer  is 
bold  in  statement,  perhaps  almost  to  the  verge  of 
dogmatism  :  but  there  is  something  refreshing  in  the 
vigour  and  precision  which  results  from  this,  and  it  is 
far  better  for  the  student  of  theology  that  he  should 


XIV  PREFACE. 

know  precisely  from  what  he  has  to  differ,  than  that  he 
should  find  himself  in  the  midst  of  vague  expressions 
with  which  he  may  possibly  be  able  to  agree.  My 
own  obligations  to  Dr.  Meyer  are  very  great. 

Orr,  James. — The  Authenticity  of  John's  Gospel 
deduced  from  Internal  Evidences,  with  Answers  to 
Objections.     London,  1870. 

Holding  a  place  somewhat  ambiguous  between  this 
and  the  next  class  is 

Ewald,  Dr.  H. — Die  Johanneischen  Schriften  Uber- 
sezt  und  erklart.  Erster  Band,  Gottingen,  1861. 
Dr.  Ewald  needs  no  commendation  to  an  English  or 
to  any  public.  I  had  read  the  introductory  portion  of 
his  work  before  beginning  to  write,  but  was  accident- 
ally prevented  from  consulting  it  while  writing.  Hence 
the  references  will  be  found  to  be  somewhat  less  fre- 
quent than  they  should  be. 

in.  Writers  maintaining  mediate  or  immediate 
Johannean  authorship  and  qualified  authenticity,  in 
the  second  degree  : — 

Rcnan,  M.  E. — Vie  de  Jesus.  Treizieme  edition, 
Paris,  1867.  (See  p.  4,  n.)  I  will  only  add  that  the 
thirteenth  edition  generally  has  been  largely  added  to 
and  improved,  and  quite  supersedes  all  former  ones. 

Weizslickcr,  Dr.  C. — Untersuchungen  iiber  die 
Evangelische  Geschichte,  ihre  Quellen  und  den  Gang 
ihrer  Entwicklung.  Gotha,  1864.  Dr.  Weizsacker  is, 
I  believe,  a  professor  at  Tiibingen,  but  is  not  identi- 
fied with  the  school  which  takes  its  name  from  that 
University.     He  is  one  of  the  editors  of  a  well-known 


PREFACE.  XV 

review,  representing  moderate  Liberalism  in  theology, 
the  'Jahrbiicher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie.'  The  present 
work  is  a  fine  example  of  grave,  dispassionate,  able 
investigation. 

Wittichcn,  M.  C. — Der  geschichtliche  Charakter  des 
Evangeliums  Johannis  in  Verbindung  mit  der  Frage 
nach  seinem  Ursprunge.  Elberfeld,  1868.  A  terse 
and  able  little  work,  but  encumbered  by  paradoxes. 
M.  Wittichen's  view  is  that  the  Gospel  was  written  by 
St.  John,  who,  however,  never  left  Syria,  and  retained 
to  the  last  his  Jewish  stand-point.  In  the  Gospel  he 
seems  to  think  that  real  and  ideal  elements  are  mixed 
in  almost  equal  proportions.  As  it  is  beside  my  pre- 
sent purpose  to  discuss  the  criticism  of  the  Ephesian 
tradition,  perhaps  I  may  be  allowed  to  refer  to  what 
is  said  upon  the  subject  in  the  article  upon  Dr.  Keim 
in  'The  Academy'  (July,  1871).  The  theory  that  is 
shared  by  Dr.  Keim  and  M.  Wittichen  has  hardly 
obtained  foothold  in  Germany — at  least  it  is  rejected 
unhesitatingly  by  Ewald,  Meyer  and  Weizsacker, 
though  it  has  recently  found  an  adherent  in  Dr. 
Holtzmann.  It  is  possible  that  I  may  have  occasion 
to  return  to  this  subject. 

IV.  Writers  who  deny  the  Johannean  authorship 
and  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  entirely  : — 

Hanson^  Sir  Richard.  —  The  Jesus  of  History. 
London,  j  869.     See  p.  87  foil.,  below. 

Hilgcnfeld,  Dr.  A. —  Die  Evangelien  nach  ihrer 
Entstehung  und  geschichtlichen  Bedeutung.  Leipzig, 
1854.  This  book  has  been  chosen  as  representing 
the  best  and  latest  version  of  the  Tubingen  theory, 


XVI  PREFACE. 

and  as  one  the  plan  of  which  ran  more  or  less  parallel 
to  my  own.     It  is  throughout  ably  written. 

Kcivi,  Dr.  TJieodor. — Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara, 
in  ihrer  Verkettung  mit  dem  Gesammtleben  seines 
Volkes.  Band  I,  Zurich,  1867.  I  was  permitted  to 
review  the  first  half  of  this  most  exhaustive  work  in 
'The  Academy'  for  July,  1871.  The  last  part  of  the 
second  and  first  part  of  the  third  volume  did  not 
reach  me  until  after  the  manuscript  had  been  sent  to 
the  press.  A  few  brief  references  to  these  are  inserted 
in  brackets.  I  hope  to  do  them  more  justice  at  some 
future  time. 

Scholtcn,  Dr.  J.  H. — Das  Evangelium  nach  Johan- 
nes, aus  dem  Hollandischen  iibersetzt  von  H.  Lang. 
Berlin,  1867.  This  a  German  translation  of  the  work 
of  a  leading  Dutch  theologian,  published  originally  in 
1864.  It  is  the  one  book  out  of  those  I  have  been  led 
to  consult,  which  has  seemed  to  me  distinctly  inferior 
to  its  reputation.  Admirably  written,  with  perfect 
lucidity  of  exposition,  the  more  solid  qualities  seem  to 
be  greatly  lacking  to  it.  It  bristles  with  unsound 
reasoning,  and,  in  spite  of  an  apparently  considerable 
acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  the  subject,  must 
still  be  pronounced  superficial. 

Tayler,J.y. — An  Attempt  to  ascertain  the  Character 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  especially  in  its  Relation  to  the 
Three  First.  Second  edition,  London,  1870.  I  have 
hardly  crossed  the  path  of  this  work,  as  only  eleven 
pages  of  it  are  given  to  the  discussion  of  '  internal 
indications.' 

With  regard  to  other  books,  the  references  to  Light- 


PREFACE.  xvii 

foot's  '  Horae  Hebraicae  ct  Talmudicae '  are  taken 
from  an  old  folio  (somewhat  faultily  paged)  of  1684; 
those  to  Schottgen  from  a  Dresden  and  Leipsic  edition 
of  1733  ;  Herzog's  '  Realcncyklopadie  fiir  Protestant- 
ische  Theologie  und  Kirche'  is  alluded  to  simply  as 
'  Herzog';  Schenkel's  '  Bibel-Lexicon '  is  indicated  by 
the  letters  'S.  B.  L.,'  and  Smith's  Dictionary  by  '  S.D.' 
The  articles  chiefly  referred  to  in  the  latter  are  those 
on  geography  and  topography,  which  are  excellent, 
and  quite  up  to  date — in  this,  I  regret  to  say,  a  con- 
trast to  the  article  on  the  Gospel. 

I  am  greatly  indebted  for  valuable  help  and  sugges- 
tions, during  the  passage  of  the  book  through  the 
press,  to  the  Rev.  T.  A.  Eaglesim,  B.A.,  of  Worcester 
College,  and  to  my  friend  Mr.  James  Beddard,  of 
Nottingham,  to  whose  kindness  and  judgment  I  never 
appeal  in  vain. 


Great  W^vltham,  Chelmsford, 
February  8,  1872. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  INTRODUCTION    AND    PROLOGUE    OF    THE    GOSPEL  I 

II.  THE    TESTDIOXY    OF    JOHN              .             .             .  .  2  1 

III.  THE    FIRST    MIRACLE    AND    THE    FIRST    PASSOVER     .  48 

IV.  THE    DISCOURSE    WITH    NICODEMUS          .             .  ,  69 

V.  SA3IARIA    AND    GALILEE         .             .             .             .  .  87 

VI.  THE    MIRACLE    AT    BETHESDA         .             .             .  .  IO3 

VII.  THE    MULTIPLICATION    OF    THE    LOAVES,     AND  THE 

DISCOURSE    AT    CAPERNAUM              .             .  .  II 6 

VIH.    THE    FE.VST    OF    TABERNACLES       .             .             .  .  1 44 

IX.  THE    ALLEGORY    OF    THE    GOOD    SHEPHERD     .  ,  1 67 

X.  THE    RAISING    OF    LAZARUS              .             .             .  .  180 

XI.  THE    TRIUMPHAL    ENTRY    INTO    JERUSALEM     .  .  I9I 

XII.  THE    DAY    OF    THE    CRUCIFIXION                .             .  .  20I 

XIII.  THE    LAST    SUPPER      .             .             .             .             .  .  214 

XIV.  THE    LAST    DISCOURSES         .             .             .             .  .  22  1 

XV.  THE    PASSOVER              .             .             .             .             •  .  239 


XX  CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

XVI.  THE    RESURRECTION  .  .  .  .  .  258 

XVII.  THE    APPEARANCE    IN    GALILEE  .  .  .  266 

XVIII.  CURRENT     ARGUMENTS     AGAINST     THE     GENUINE- 

NESS   OF    THE    GOSPEL         .  .  .  .  273 

XIX.  SUMMARY     PROOF    OF    THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE 

GOSPEL  ......  286 

XX.  THE     HYPOTHESIS     OF     MEDIATE    JOHANNEAN    AU- 

THORSHIP,   AND    CONCLUSION        .  .  .  298 


CHAPTER    I. 


INTRODUCTION   AND    PROLOGUE    OF    THE   GOSPEL. 


AMONG  the  lengthened  discussions  which  have 
had  for  their  object  the  reconstruction  of  the 
history  contained  in  the  four  Gospels,  one  conclusion 
seems  to  have  emerged  with  considerable  distinct- 
ness ;  that  is,  the  necessity  of  starting  from  a  thorough 
critical  investigation  of  the  documents.  It  may,  no 
doubt,  be  possible  to  draw  a  picture  in  rough  outline 
and  then  simply  to  allege  its  consistency  in  proof 
of  its  truth.  To  a  certain  extent  this  method  is  a 
legitimate  one ;  and  it  is  more  applicable  to  a  sub- 
ject so  unique  and  remarkable  in  its  character,  than 
it  would  be  to  a  more  ordinary  series  of  events, 
where  the  number  of  possible  combinations  was 
greater.  But  it  is  clear  that  such  a  method  can 
only  admit  of  vague  and  approximate  results.  As 
soon  as  we  descend  to  particulars,  it  fails  us  alto- 
gether. The  question  may  be  raised  as  to  whether 
the  picture  presented  is  really  consistent,  or  as  to 
whether  it  is  the  only  consistent  picture  dcduciblc 
from  the  premisses ;  and  where  this  is  the  case,  it 
is  obvious  that  its  self- evidential  force  at  once 
ceases. 


Necessity 
for  critical 
examination 
of  theEvan- 
gelicaldocu- 
meiits. 


INTRODUCTION. 


[chap. 


Object  of 
the  Essay. 


For  example,  to  take  the  question  of  miracles : 
one  writer  produces  a  picture  in  which  miracles  are 
an  essential  feature  ;  another  writes  a  history  from 
which  they  are  altogether  eliminated  ^  How  are 
we  to  decide  between  them .''  Prior  to  the  exami- 
nation of  the  documents,  what  criterion  have  we 
that  is  not  far  too  subjective  to  carry  with  it 
general  conviction .-'  We  need  to  know  how  near 
the  original  narrators  stood  to  the  events,  and 
what  is  the  character  of  the  context  in  which  the 
miracles  are  found. 

The  most  satisfactory  method,  then,  is  to  begin 
at  the  beginning,  and  to  work  steadily  upwards : 
first  to  institute  a  searching  examination  of  the 
documents,  so  as  to  discover  their  true  nature  and 
value ;  and  then,  with  the  results  of  this  before  us, 
to  fit  their  contents,  so  far  as  is  possible,  into  a 
single  historical  frame. 

The  present  essay  is  intended  as  an  instalment 
towards  the  first  half  of  such  an  enquiry.  Following 
the  natural  division,  according  to  which  the  three 
first  or  Synoptic  Gospels  are  taken  as  one  class, 
and  the  fourth,  that  which  goes  under  the  name  of 
St.  John,  as  another,  it  deals  only  with  the  latter, 
partly  as  the  more  important  of  the  two,  —  a 
greater  divergence  of  opinion  in  respect  of  it 
being  possible, — and  partly  because  the  questions 
raised  in  connection  with  it  seem  most  ripe  for 
decision. 

^'Between  the  astonishing  design  nom  de  telle  ou  telle  philosophic, 

and    its  astonishing    success   there  c'est  au  nom  d'une  constante  expe- 

intervenes    an   astonishing  instru-  rience,  que  nous  bannissons  le  mira- 

mentality — that  of  miracles.'  {Ecce  cle  de  1'  histoire.'    (Renan,   Vie  de 

B.omo,'^.  42.)  'Ce  n'est  done  pas  au  Jesus,  Introd.  p.  xcvi.,  13th  ed.). 


!•] 


INTRODUCTION. 


Within  this  more  Hmited  range,  however,  our 
enquiry  still  does  not  profess  to  be  exhaustive.  It  is 
a  subdivision  of  a  division.  It  is  confined  to  what 
is  commonly  known  as  the  internal  evidence  to  the 
character  of  the  Gospel.  Several  reasons  seem  to 
make  this  limitation  of  treatment  desirable.  The 
subject  of  the  external  evidence  has  been  pretty 
well  fought  out.  The  opposing  parties  are  probably 
as  near  to  an  agreement  as  they  ever  will  be.  It 
will  hardly  be  an  unfair  statement  of  the  case  for 
those  who  reject  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Gospel,  to  say,  that  the  external  evidence  is  com- 
patible with  that  supposition.\|^!^nd  on  the  other 
hand,  we  may  equally  say  for  those  who  accept  the 
Johannean  authorship,  that  the  external  evidence 
would  not  be  sufficient  alone  to  prove  it-".  As  it  at 
present  stands,  the  controversy  may  be  regarded  as 
drawn ;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  the  position  of 
parties  will  be  materially  altered. 

Thus  we  are  thrown  back  upon  the  internal  evi- 
dence ;    and   I   have  the   less  hesitation  in   confining 


'  I  am  aware  that  in  making 
this  statement  I  am  obliged  to 
express  a  different  opinion  from 
Canon  Liddon  (Bampton  Lectures, 
p.  224  n).  But  Canon  Liddon  has 
gone  almost  entirely  to  Tischen- 
dorf,  who  with  all  his  merits  is  a 
notorious  partisan.  Besides,  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  noticed 
sufficiently  the  qualifications  to 
which  the  external  evidence  is  sub- 
ject. This  side  of  the  question  will 
be  found  fairly  discussed  by  Kcim, 
Jesu  von  Nazara,  pp.  1 36-146,  and 
Holtzmann  in  S.  B.  L.  ii.  222. 
'  Speaking  impartially,'  Dr.  Holtz- 
mann says,  'it  must  be  confessed, 


that  the  evidence  for  the  S^Tioptic 
Gospels  hardly  begins  earlier  than 
that  for  St.  John.  The  use  of  the 
latter,  however,  was  for  a  long  time 
much  weaker,  much  more  cautious 
than  that  of  the  former.'  This 
'  weaker  and  more  cautious  use ' 
may  be  explained  by  other  causes 
than  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospel.  It  may  be  partly 
due  to  the  fact,  that  it  was  in  any 
case  composed  later  than  the  other 
three ;  partly  also  to  its  peculiar 
and  almost  esoteric  character ; 
partly  to  external  accidents,  which 
may  have  for  a  time  limited  its 
circulation. 


B  2 


Confined  to 
internal  evi- 
dence. 


introduction: 


[chap. 


myself  to  this,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  capable  of 
leading  to  a  quite  definite  conclusion.  Whether  it 
really  does  so  the  event  must  show.  But  in  the 
meantime  the  present  essay  is  submitted  to  the 
public,  as  a  contribution  towards  the  solution  of  the 
problem. 

Its  plan  is  not  indeed  unprecedented^,  but  may 
appear  to  an  English  reader  somewhat  novel.  In 
accordance  with  the  general  principle  by  which  lite- 
rary neatness  has  throughout  been  sacrificed  to  prac- 
tical serviceableness  and  reliability,  it  has  been 
thought  well  to  go  through  the  Gospel  chapter  by 
chapter  and  verse  by  verse,  determining,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  exact  value  of  the  separate  data  as 
they  present  themselves,  and  not  combining  the 
whole  into  a  single  view  until  the  detailed  investi- 
gation was  complete. 

Obviously  such  a  procedure  will  have  its  disad- 
vantages. It  will  involve  an  appearance  of  confu- 
sion, and  a  certain  amount  of  repetition.  But  I 
cannot  but  think  that  the  reader  will  be  willing  to 
put  up  with  these  in  return  for  the  greater  security 
he  will  possess,  that  the  facts  have  not  been  garbled, 
or  their  true  bearing  distorted  ;  inasmuch  as  he  will, 
be  able  to  see  each  one  of  them  in  connection  with 
its  context,  and  if  he  should  be  led  to  form  a  dif- 
ferent judgment  from  the  writer,  he  will  be  able  on 
each  occasion  to  take  note  of  it. 

The  method  is  indeed  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 


^  It  is  practically  the  plan  pur-  of  his   Vie  de  Jesus — a  somewhat 

sued  by   Hilgenfeld  in  his    work,  slight    sketch,  but   one   Ihat   often 

Die  Evangelien,  and  also  by  Renan  shows  the  author's  fine   historical 

in  the  Appendix  to  the  13th  edition  sense  to  much  advantage. 


I-] 


THE   PROLOGUE. 


word  inductive.  It  first  seeks  and  defines  its  data 
out  of  the  confused  mass  of  phenomena ;  and  then, 
when  they  arc  ready  for  use,  groups  and  arranges 
them ;  and  not  until  that  is  done  does  it  finally 
draw  its  conclusions.  It  may  adopt  the  privilege  of 
science  in  forming  a  provisional  hypothesis  as  it 
proceeds  ;  but  not  until  it  has  been  tested  and  veri- 
fied and  compared  with  the  whole  sum  of  the  pheno- 
mena, will  that  hypothesis  venture  to  assert  itself  as 
established  ;  and  even  then  it  will  still  be  amenable 
to  the  bar  of  a  competent  public  opinion. 

There  will  be  the  further  incidental  advantage  that 
our  enquiry  itself  will,  in  some  respects,  serve  as  a 
running  commentary  upon  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  it 
is  hoped  that  it  may  contribute  something  to  the 
elucidation  both  of  the  narrative  and  the  discourses 
which  occur  in  the  course  of  it.  But  this  has  been 
of  course  only  a  secondary  object,  and  has  been 
throughout  subordinated  to  that  announced  upon  the 
title-page  ;  viz.  the  attempt  to  ascertain  who  was  the 
author  of  the  Gospel,  and  what  degree  of  authenticity 
is  to  be  assigned  to  its  contents. 

With  this  object  before  us  we  proceed  to  the  consi- 
deration of  the  first  chapter. 


The  Prologue. 

^  The  Gospel  opens  with  a  prologue,  which  is  the 
philosophical  or  theological  introduction  to  the  history 
that  follows. '  In  high  metaphysical  language  the 
subject  of  the  Gospel  is  announced  as  '  the  Word 
made    Flesh.'      Accordingly   in    thes/^  first    eighteen 


Incidental 
advantage. 


St.  John 
1-18. 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


verses  the  Evangelist  sets  forth  the  nature,  functions, 
and  successive  manifestations  of  the  Word. 

1.  As  pre-existent.  When  time  began  the  Word 
was  already  throned  face  to  face  with  God  {-Trpos  rov 
0eoV),  and  partaking  of  His  Divine  Essence.  Through 
the  Word  the  work  of  creation  was  accomphshed.  He 
was  the  Source  of  hght  and  hfe,  i,  e.  of  all  physical, 
moral,  and  spiritual  well-being  for  man.  But  the 
Light  shone  in  vain  :  the  darkness  of  human  nature 
was  too  gross  to  receive  it. 

2.  As  incarnate.  To  this  incarnation  the  prophet 
John  bare  witness.  He  was  not  himself  the  Light. 
The  functions  of  the  True  Light  were  not,  like  his, 
limited  and  subsidiary,  but  wide  as  the  world  itself, 
and  extending  to  every  man  that  is  born  into  it '. 
He  came ;  the  Creator  to  His  creatures ;  the  Messiah 
to  His  people.  As  a  people  they  rejected  Him  ;  but 
there  were  some  few  who  by  the  election  and  grace 
of  God  did  receive  Him  ;  and  to  them  He  proved  to 
be  the  source  of  life  indeed. 

3.  As  revealing  the  Father.  Thus  the  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  manifested  forth  His  glory,  which  as 
well  by  its  own  essential  character,  the  grace  and 
truth  which  flowed  from  it,  as  by  the  direct  testi- 
mony of  John,  was  seen  to  be  the  glory  of  the  only- 


^  The  one  argument  which  seems 
fatal  to  the  combination  of  epx^" 
jjievov  with  r/v  is,  that  in  that  case 
a  sei'ies  of  manifestations,  the  con- 
tinuous manifestation  of  the  word 
('  kam  stets '  Ewald),  must  be 
meant ;  but  the  context  clearly 
points  to  the  special  and  chief 
manifestation  in  the  Incantation, 
to  which  John  bore  witness.    The 


antithesis  is  between  the  lesser  re- 
flected light  of  John,  and  the 
world-wide  illumination  of  the 
incarnate  Word.  For  the  expres- 
sion (px-  f  IS  7".  K.  there  is  a  parallel 
in  2  John  7.  Several  others  are 
quoted  by  Lightfoot  from  Jewish 
writers  {Home  Hebi-aicae,  p.  521). 
It  would  appear  to  be  a  He- 
braism. 


!•] 


THE  rROLOGUE. 


begotten,  pre-existent  Son  ^  Thus  God  Himself  has 
been  revealed  ;  no  longer  partially  as  by  Moses,  but 
in  the  fulness  of  His  attributes  by  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  obvious  that  we  are  moving  here  in  a  region 
of  ideas  wholly  different  from  anything  that  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  All  appears  to  turn 
round    this   single   expression,  the   Logos   or  Word. 

V,The  Word  is  that  mediatory  Divine  Being  by  whom 
the  invisible,  unapproachable  God  acts  visibly  upon 
the  world  and  upon  men.  It  is  the  Organ  of  creation, 
revelation,  salvation,  the  Giver  of  light  and  life,  and  It 
was  incarnate  in  the  'man  Christ  Jesus.' 

Such  is  the  Johannean  doctrine  of  the  Logos  ;  and 
the  question  at  once  arises,  what  is  the  sphere  of 
ideas  to  which  it  belongs  ?  what  is  the  theological  or 
philosophical  system  with  which  it  is  to  be  correlated? 
The  answer  to  this  may  throw  some  light  upon  the 
origin  of  the  Gospel 

There  are  several  systems  into  which  '  the  Logos ' 
or  '  Word '  enters  as  an  important  factor,  and  with 
any  of  these  it  would  seem  that  the  Gospel  might 
be  connected  ;  it  might  be  either  Gnostic,  or  Jewish, 
or  Alexandrine.  If  we  are  to  suppose  that  it  was 
formed  under  the  influence  of  developed  Gnosticism, 
then  it  will  probably  have  been  written  some  time 
in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century.  If  it 
grew  directly  out  of  Alexandrinism  or  Judaism,  then 
it  may  fall  any  time  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  first, 

C\vi  other  words,  the  first  supposition   is  in  any  case 


1  AVe  are  absolved  from  the  ne- 
cessity of  deciding  the  difficult 
question  as  to  the  reading  of  ver. 
1 8,  fiovoyev^s  Q(6s  or  tJ.ov.  v'los. 
Both  are  found  in  patristic  citations 
as  early  as   Irenaeus,  and   in  the 


writings  of  Irenaeus  himself  (170- 
200  A.D.l.  Cation  Lightfoot  argues 
from  this  that  the  text  must  have 
been  some  time  in  existence.  {Re- 
vision of  Eng.  N.  T.,  p.  20.) 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


Doctrine  of 
the  Logos. 


^vt/- 


U'l 


Its  chrono- 
logical rela- 
tions. 


THE  PROLOGUE.  [cHAP. 

incompatible  with  Apostolic  authorship  i' either  of  the 
two  others  are  compatible  with  it. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  Gnostic  origin,  e.  g.  in  a 
system  like  the  Valentinian,  cannot  in  the  present 
stage  of  critical  investigation  be  regarded  as  tenable. 
The  difference  between  the  external  evidence  for  the 
fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics  is  now  seen  to  be 
far  too  small  for  an  interval  of  seventy  or  eighty 
years  to  be  placed  between  them^.  And  on  internal 
grounds,  if  the  fourth  Gospel  had  been  produced  in 
the  midst  of  the  Gnostic  systems,  it  must  have  been 
much  more  explicit  upon  the  points  where  it  comes 
into  contact  with  Gnosticism.  Whether  it  was  com- 
posed in  the  interest  of  the  Gnostics  or  of  ortho- 
doxy, or  to  reconcile  both,  it  could  not  have  failed 
to  declare  its  object  much  more  plainly  and  definitely. 

A  brief  glance  at  the  Gnostic  systems  will,  I  think, 
suffice  to  make  this  clear.  The  Valentinian  system 
has  indeed  the  Logos,  but  it  has  much  more  besides. 
The  Logos  is  only  one  of  a  series  of  thirty  Aeons  or 
emanations  which,  proceeding  from  the  Bytlios  or 
incomprehensible  central  point  of  the  Divine  Being, 
and  combined  in  pairs  male  and  female,  fill  up  the 
circle  of  the  Divine  attributes  known  as  the  Pleroma. 
Outside  the  Pleroma,  and  parted  from  it  by  the 
boundary  Horos  or  Stauros,  lies  the  Ogdoas,  an 
abode  formed  for  Achamoth,  the  abortive  fruit  of 
Sophia  the  twenty-eighth  Aeon.  Beyond  that  again 
is  the  Hebdomas  presided  over  by  the  Demiurgus,  the 

*  Cf.  Holtzmann    in  S.B.L.  ii.  Synoptists  would  come  about  too 

2  22  ad  fin.    Dr.  Holtzmann  speaks  a.d.      Dr.  Holtzmann's   own  view 

of  '  three  to  five  decads  ;'  but  that  is  more  probable,  that  the  Synoptic 

is  from  the  Tiibingen  point  of  view,  literature  was  complete  by  the  year 

according  to  which  the  last  of  the  8d  a.d. 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 

To  Gnostic 
systems. 


The  Valen- 
tinian. 


!•] 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


maker  of  the  world  and  of  men.  Monogenes  is  an- 
other name  for  the  Aeon  Nous ;  the  Aeon  Logos  is 
separated  from  the  Aeon  Christus ;  Christus  from 
Jesus  Soter,  who  is  not  an  Aeon,  but  the  fruit  of 
all  the  Aeons,  the  '  Star  of  the  Pleroma.'  The  Soter 
again  is  separated  from  the  Son  of  Mary  ;  and  the 
different  parts  of  the  system  are  linked  together  by 
an  elaborate  mythology \ 

What  has  become  of  all  this  wild  overgrowth  in 
the  Gospel  ?  Surely  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  the 
Evangelist  has  thrust  his  hand,  as  it  were,  into  the 
middle  of  it,  and  drawn  forth  the  Logos  alone.  Is  it 
not  much  more  natural  to  regard  the  Valentinian 
system  as  a  corrupt  heretical  development  of  the 
ideas  contained  in  the  Gospel  ?  The  two  are  related 
to  one  another  much  as,  in  architecture.  Florid 
Perpendicular  is  related  to  Norman.  But  it  is  a  law 
both  of  thought  and  nature,  that  the  simpler  form 
precedes  the  more  complex.  Again,  it  seems  impos- 
sible, that  if  the  Evangelist  had  had  these  strange 
distortions  of  his  own  ideas  before  him,  he  should  not 
have  guarded  more  expressly  against  misconception. 
Would  he  not  have  told  us  that  his  Logos  was  not 
the  Valentinian  Logos ;  that  with  him,  Monogenes, 
Christus,  Soter  were  but  divers  appellations  of  a 
single  person  ;  that  he  knew  nothing  of  Ogdoas  or 
Hebdomas,  of  Achamoth  or  Sophia,  of  the  Demi- 
urgus,  of  Syzygies  or  Aeons  ?  It  would  have  seemed 
almost  superfluous  to  argue  the  question,  if  the  op- 
posite view  had  not  actually  been  maintained  ^. 

>  Cf.  Baur,  Kirchen-geschichte  der  andii.;  YW^p^ioly^^xs,  Philosophumena, 

drei  ersten   Jahrhuiiderte,  pp.   196-  vi.  21  foil. 

203.     The  orit^inal  authonties  are        ^  e.  g.  by  Hilgenfeld,  pp.  .',.^0- 

principally  Irenaeus  adv.  Haer.  b.  i.  334.     Dr.  Scholten  thinks  tlial  th: 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


THE   PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 

The  Basi- 
lidian. 


Valentinus  appears  to  have  flourished  about  140 
A.D. ;  BasiHdes  comes  fifteen  years  earher :  but  the 
same  arguments  which  push  the  Gospel  back  behind 
Valentinus,  also  push  it  back  behind  Basilides.  The 
Basilidian  system  starts  with  two  main  postulates, 
God,  who  represents  the  extreme  of  abstraction,  none 
but  negative  predicates  being  applied  to  Him,  and 
the  primaeval  chaos.  In  this  chaos  are  mingled  seeds 
of  divine  matter,  which  are  designated  by  the  name 
of  dioVtj?.  Some  of  these  fly  upwards  at  once  by 
their  own  volatility.  From  the  rest  is  evolved,  first, 
the  region  of  the  Ogdoas  with  its  Archon  or  sovereign, 
and  the  son  who  reigns  by  his  side,  better  and  wiser 
than  himself;  and  then  the  region  of  the  Hebdomas, 
with  its  Archon  and  his  son.  These  regions  are  filled 
besides  with  other  '  principalities  and  powers ;'  and 
above  them  all,  but  below  the  highest  region  of  the 
non-existent,  hovers  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  are  still 
some  particles  of  utorrj?  remaining  beneath  among  the 
residuum  of  chaos  ;  and  Christianity  represents  with 
Basilides  the  scheme  by  which  these  are  liberated, 
through  separation,  from  the  matter  in  which  they 
are  imprisoned.  A  series  of  communications  pass 
from  the  Spirit  to  the  son  of  the  higher  Archon,  from 
him  to  his  father,  and  also  to  the  son  of  the  lower 
Archon,  and  finally  to  the  son  of  Mary,  through  whom 
the  ultimate  separation  takes  placed 


author  of  the  fourth  Gospel, '  pene- 
trated by  the  philosophy  of  his 
time,and  highly  valuing  the  Gnostic 
speculations,  set  himself  to  reform 
the  immorality  and  fantastic  extra- 
vagance of  Gnosticism,  as  much  in 
the  interest  of  Christianity  as  of 
the  tnie  Gnosis,  and  so  produced 
a  work   by   which    Gnosticism   is 


brought  down  from  the  sphere  of 
barren  abstraction  to  that  of  reality.' 
(p.  428.)  Schwegler  connects  the 
origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel  with 
the  still  later  phenomena  of  Mon- 
tanism.  Nachapost.  Zeit.,  p.  345  ; 
cf.  Pfleiderer,  Geschichte  der  Reli- 
gion, p.  481. 

^    Cf.    Baur,    Kirchen- geschichte. 


I.] 


THE   PROLOGUE. 


Wc  repeat  the  question,  is  it  credible  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  prologue  to  the  fourth  Gospel  should 
have  grown  by  any  means  of  contact  or  of  contrast 
out  of  systems  such  as  these  ?  May  we  not  go  farther 
and  say  that  the  interval  necessary  for  their  deve- 
lopment out  of  the  kind  of  conditions  that  the 
fourth  Gospel  implies,  must  have  been  a  considerable 
one  ?  The  date  of  Basilides  and  his  system  is  about 
125  A.D. :  that  assigned  to  the  fourth  Gospel  by  those 
who  believe  it  to  be  the  work  of  the  Apostle,  is  the 
decad  80-90  A.D.  And  conjecturally,  taking  as  a 
basis  of  calculation  the  interval  which  separates  Ba- 
silides from  Valentinus  and  the  number  of  points 
which  they  have  in  common,  this  would  appear  to  be 
a  not  unreasonable  period  to  place  between  them. 

There  are  however,  I  suspect,  data  a  degree  more 
definite  than  those  supplied  by  the  system  of  Basi- 
lides. The  Ophitic  is  the  earliest  Gnostic  system  of 
which  we  have  sufficiently  full  and  trustworthy  infor- 
mation. But  there  is  much  reason  to  doubt  whether 
the  Evangelist  would  have  written  iii.  14  as  he  has 
done,  if  Ophitic  Gnosticism  had  then  been  in  exist- 
ence, or  at  least  if  it  had  come  within  his  knowledge. 
The  serpent  was  the  centre  of  this  system,  at  once 
its  good  and  its  evil  principle.  The  serpent  who 
tempted  Eve,  the  fiery  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
the  rod  of  Moses,  the  brazen  serpent,  represented 
under  various  forms  the  malevolent  or  beneficent 
powers.  The  good  serpent  is  also  the  apx'/j  the  Lo- 
gos, the  Saviour  who  stands  between  God  and  mat'tcr, 
and  works  in  its  votaries  that  Gnostic  emancipation 

pp.  204-212.     Original  authorities,  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  i.  24;  Hipp.  Fbilos. 
b.  vii.  etc. 


St.  John  i. 
i-i8. 


The  Ophi- 
tic. 


THE   PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


St  John  i. 
i-i8. 


To  the 
Pauline  Epi- 
stles of  the 
imprison- 
ment. 


by  which  they  are  delivered  from  the  thraldom 
of  the  flesh.  But,  this  being  so,  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  the  serpent  would  have  been  introduced  as 
it  is  in  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus.  An  orthodox 
writer  could  not  treat  it  as  a  harmless  symbol ;  a 
writer  with  Ophitic  leanings  would  have  emphasized 
the  point  and  enlarged  upon  it^. 

We  are  thus  brought  by  a  negative  process  to  a 
date  not  very  far  from  80-90  A.D.  And  on  the  posi- 
tive side  the  data  seem  to  converge  nearly  upon  the 
same  point.  Dr.  Lipsius,  the  latest  authority  upon  the 
history  of  Gnosticism,  in  speaking  of  the  Pauline  Epi- 
stles to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  describes  them 
as  standing  in  much  the  same  relation  to  Gnosticism 
as  the  fourth  Gospel  -.  He  does  this  indeed  leaving  it 
an  open  question  whether  they  were  really  written  by 
St.  Paul.  But  I  do  not  imagine  that  an  English  critic 
will  have  any  doubt  upon  this  head.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  is  vouched  for,  not  only  by  its  language 
and  style,  but  chiefly  by  its  connection  with  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  cannot  by  any  possibility 
be  a  forgery.  And  the  only  real  difficulty  in  regard 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  removed  by  the 
amended  reading  of  i.  i,  and  the  hypothesis  which 
regards  it  as  a  circular  letter.  M.  Renan,  although  he 
raises  the  question,  has  evidently  no  doubt  of  the 
genuineness  of  these  Epistles  ^ :  it  is  maintained  by 
all  the  moderate  German  schools,  e.  g.  those  which  are 


1  Cf.  Baur,  pp.   192-195 ;   Lip- 
sius, Gnoslicismus,  pp.  I  26-133. 
^  Cf.  art.  '  Gnosis '  in  ■$■.  B.  L.  ii. 

^  Cf.    St.  Paul,   pp.  xi,  xx-xxiii. 
M.  Renan  thinks  that  the  Epistle  to 


the  Ephesians  was  not  written  ac- 
tually by  St  Paul,  but  under  his 
eyes  and  in  his  name  by  Tychicus 
or  Timothy.  This  would  leave  its 
date  unaltered. 


!•] 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


13 


represented  by  Bleek,  Reuss,  Meyer,  and  even  Schen- 
kel  1 ;  and  the  denial  of  it  forms  a  part  of  the  Tubin- 
gen system  that  is  rapidly  falling  into  discredit.  The 
literary  data,  including  under  these  the  general  im- 
probability of  forgery,  are  decisive  in  favour  of  the 
Epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  Philemon.  And  from 
these  two  fixed  points  we  argue  backwards  to  the 
other  Epistles  of  the  imprisonment.  It  may  be  set 
down  as  to  all  intents  certain  that  they  were  written 
by  St.  Paul  ;  and  to  this  conclusion  the  history  of 
dogma  clearly  must  conform. 

But  if  the  Johannean  theology  is  to  be  grouped 
with  that  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colos- 
sians,  and  if  we  allow  for  a  certain  advance  which  it 
exhibits  upon  them,  it  cannot  be  dated  much  later 
than  80  A.D.,  which  agrees  with  the  results  of  our  pre- 
vious investigation. 

The  history  of  the  Church  at  this  period  is  exceed- 
ingly obscure.  The  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, and  perhaps  that  of  Barnabas,  are  the 
only  extra-canonical  books  that  fall  within  the  first 
century  ^  ;  while  the  external  authorities,  Irenaeus 
and  the  Philosophumena,  cease  to  be  trustworthy 
guides  when  we  pass  beyond  the  Ophites.  Any 
theory,  therefore,  that  we  may  form  as  to  the  growth 
and  development  either  of  orthodox  or  of  heterodox 
doctrine  must  be  based  upon  conjecture,  derived 
chiefly    from    data   contained    within    the    canonical 


'  Cf.  Bleek,  Einl.  pp.  444-446,  (Lightfoot,     Ritschl,    &'c.).      The 

440-45 1  :    Reuss,   Gesch.  der  Heil.  Epistle  of  Barnabas  falls  either  in 

Schrift.N.  7".  •s^  I iS.  119.  121,  123;  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  c.  133  ad., 

Schenkel  on  Eph.  in  S.  B.  L.  or  in  that  of  Nerva,  c.  97  a.d. — 

^  The   Epistle   of  Clement  was  probably  the  latter. 
written    about    the    year   95    a.d. 


St.  John  i. 
i-iS. 


Approx- 
imate de- 
termination 
of  date. 


14 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


Relation  to 
previous  de- 
velopments, 
Judaean  or 
Alexan- 
drine. 


books  themselves.  But  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  at  a  date  not  far  from  that 
upon  which  we  have  fixed  ;  rather,  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  everything  to  favour  it.  All  the  elements  both 
of  orthodox  and  heterodox  development  had  now 
been  for  some  time  in  existence.  Philo  was  an  old 
man  in  39  A.D.  The  foundation  of  Christianity  was, 
as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show,  complete  in  the 
year  30.  The  dates  assigned  to  the  death  of  St.  Paul 
are  from  64  to  68.  Jerusalem  was  in  ruins.  The 
Gentile  congregations  had  a  fixed  and  recognised 
existence  in  the  Church.  And  alongside  of  the 
conditions  which  these  facts  would  represent,  were 
the  Oriental  religions  wuth  their  mythologies  always 
ready  to  draw  upon,  and  to  give  birth  to  here- 
tical opinions.  On  the  whole,  it  would  seem  as  if 
the  decad  80-90  A.D.  stood  upon  the  line  of  de- 
velopment between  the  simple  facts  of  Christianity 
and  the  final  coalescence  of  Alexandrinism  and  the 
Oriental  religions  under  Christian  forms,  very  much 
in  the  place  that  we  should  assign  to  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  that  go  under  the  name  of  St.  John. 

There  is,  however,  a  further  question  that  has  some 
bearing  upon  the  authorship  of  these  writings.  We 
have  seen  that  the  theology  of  the  prologue  cannot 
be  referred  to  the  period  of  full-grown  Gnosticism. 
Are  we  then  to  look  for  its  antecedents  in  Alexandria 
or  Palestine }  Until  recently  the  first  of  these  two 
views  has  prevailed  ;  but  the  second  has  of  late  found 
energetic  defenders .'.  It  is  not  difficult  to  show,  both 
that  the  Logos  of  St.  John  diff"ers  from  that  of  Philo, 

^  e.g.  Luthardt,  whose  view  is  discussed  by  Alford,  Comm.  p  6j8; 
Weiss,  Theclogie  des  N.  T.  §  202  ;  Wittichen,  Ev.  Job.  pp  10-15. 


I-] 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


15 


and  that  there  are  apparent  antecedents  for  it  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  in  the  Apocrypha.  But  we  must 
remember,  first,  that  between  Philo  and  the  Evan- 
geHst  there  lay  the  historical  fact  of  the  life  of  Christ ; 
this  life  is,  according  to  the  Evangelist,  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Logos  ;  and  the  philosophic  idea  could  not  but 
undergo  transformation,  as  soon  as  it  came  to  be  iden- 
tified with  a  historical  Person.  And  secondly,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  Philo  bases,  nominally  at  least, 
his  whole  philosophy  on  the  Old  Testament ;  so  that  it 
is  not  strange  if  theories  derived  from  him  should  bear 
a  certain  Old  Testament  colour.  At  the  same  time 
the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  in  which  the  nearest 
approximations  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  are  to  be 
found,  belong  to  the  same  general  stream  as  Philo 
himself.  One  of  them,  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  was 
actually  attributed  to  him  by  a  tradition  older  than 
Jerome  ^  This  class  of  writings,  therefore,  cannot  be 
alleged  as  showing  that  a  doctrine  of  the  Logos  was 
formed  independently  of  Alexandria. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  only  contended  that  Philo 
is  the  medium  through  which  the  Word  of  the  Old 
Testament  passed  into  the  Logos  of  St.  John  :  and  I 
cannot  think  that  this  proposition  has  been  satis- 
factorily disproved.  The  personification  of  Wisdom  in 
the  Old  Testament  is  poetical :  that  of  the  Word  in 
St.  John  is  metaphysical :  and  this  is  precisely  the 
character  that  had  been  given  to  it  by  Philo.  One  of 
the  writers  who  assigns  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  to 
Jewish  sources,  speaks  of  it  as  a  creation  of '  religious 

'  Jerome    says   in   his    preface,  tlie  book  by  modern  critics  range 

'  nonnuUi  scriptorum  veterum  hunc  between   217  b.c.  and  40  a.d.     It 

(libr.   Sap.)   esse    Philonis    Judaei  was  probably  written  after  145  b.c. 
affirmant.'    Tlie  dates  assigned  to 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


To  the 
Logos  of 
Philo. 


i6 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 


poetry '  (religios-dichterischer)  ;  but  this  description 
is,  I  think  we  must  say,  certainly  misplaced — and  it 
seems  to  be  an  equal  error  to  call  the  Logos  of  Philo 
'  nothing  but  the  caput  mortmnn  of  philosophical 
abstraction  ^,'  On  the  contrary,  it  is  through  the 
Logos  that  Philo  saves  his  idea  of  the  Deity  from 
becoming  a  mere  abstraction.  The  Logos  is  the 
agency  through  which  the  Absolute  Being  operates 
upon  finite  matter.  It  is  the  divine  Organ,  by  which 
the  worlds  were  made.  It  is  '  the  Captain  of  the  host 
of  ideas,'  'the  Vice-regent  of  the  Great  King,'  'the  High 
Priest,'  in  whom  God  and  the  world  are  reconciled,  '  a 
second  God,'  'the  eldest  Son  of  God'-.'  Instead  of  being 
a  pure  philosophical  abstraction,  this  conception  of  the 
Logos  is  rather  the  very  point  at  which  the  Platonic 
Idealism  begins  to  be  intermingled  with  the  more 
concrete  forms  of  the  East. 

And  yet  there  is  still  a  wide  difference  from  the 
Gospel.  The  Philonian  Logos  is  a  kind  of  fluid 
medium :  at  one  moment  it  seems  to  have  a  separate 
and  almost  hypostatical  existence  ;  at  the  next  it  is 
reabsorbed  in  the  centre  from  which  it  issues.  We 
find  the  phrase  '  Logoi '  as  well  as  '  Logos,'  as  if  Logos 
were  a  collective  term.  There  is  none  of  the  definite- 
ness  and  fixity  of  a  person.  But  we  have  only  to  read 
in  between  the  lines  the  single  sentence  6  Aoyo?  (rap^ 
iyevero,  and  this  difference  is  removed.  Once  think  of 
the  Philonian  Logos  as  incarnate,  as  dwelling  or  having 
dwelt  upon  the  earth  in  the  likeness  of  a  man,  and  the 
resulting  conception  will  be  found  to  be  very  similar 

1  Cf.  Wittichen,  pp.  13,  14. 

^  Cf.  Lipsius  in  5.  B.  L.  i.  95-97 ;  Meyer,  Liicke,  and  Alford  on  the 
prologue  to  the  Gospel. 


!•] 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


17 


to  that  which  is  laid  down  in  the  prologue  to  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  prologue  must  be  taken 
to  show  a  certain  acquaintance  with  Philo's,  or  at 
least  with  Alexandrine  theology.  Without  assuming 
this  I  do  not  see  what  account  we  are  to  give  of  the 
transition  from  that  which  had  been  hitherto  a  poetic 
figure  of  speech  to  a  metaphysical  reality.  For  the 
prologue  clearly  presupposes  the  step  to  have  been 
taken.  The  author  is  conscious  that  he  is  not  now 
taking  it  for  the  first  time  :  his  manner  is  that  of  one 
who  is  introducing  a  new  content  into  a  current  recog- 
nised and  generally  intelligible  idea.  If  this  had  not 
been  the  case  he  must  have  begun  by  sketching  a 
system  of  abstract  metaphysics,  before  he  came  to 
apply  them  specially  to  theology.  It  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  which  is  novel,  but  only  the  identification 
of  the  Logos  with  the  Founder  of  Christianity. 

But  the  fact  that  the  theology  of  the  prologue  has 
its  origin  in  Alexandria,  still  does  not  give  us  any  exact 
information  as  to  the  author.  Alexandrine  ideas  were 
widely  diftused,  and  their  geographical  boundary  line 
is  too  indistinct  to  admit  of  a  precise  conclusion. 
There  seems  indeed  to  be  some  doubt  as  to  how  far 
they  had  penetrated  into  Palestine — the  peculiar  cul- 
ture that  we  find  in  St.  Paul  appears  to  be  due  rather 
to  an  independent  Rabbinical  branch  of  the  same 
movement  ^.  But  in  the  centres  of  Greek  civilisation, 
and  especially  in  Asia  Minor,  which  was  as  much  a 
meeting-point  of  East  and  West  as  Alexandria  itself, 
Alexandrine  theories  were  at  home. 

'  Cf.  Lipsius,  Gnos//cii?n?/s,  pp.  4t,  42.  Yet  the  later  Epistles  (Eph. 
and  Col.)  surely  show  signs  of  Alexandrine  influence. 

C 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


Geogra- 
phical 
relations 
of  the 
doctrine. 


i8 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
i-i8. 


Dogmatic 
character 
of  the 
prologue. 


Compared 
with  that 
of  the 
Synoptic 
Gospels. 


All  we  can  say  then  is,  that  so  far  as  the  prologue 
is  concerned  there  is  a  certain  probability — somewhat 
vague  and  slight  in  respect  of  place,  stronger  in  respect 
of  time — in  favour  of  the  tradition  that  the  Gospel  was 
composed  at  Ephesus,  and  between  80-90  A.D, 

But  before  we  quit  the  prologue,  we  ought  to  con- 
sider it  in  its  bearing  upon  the  other  subject  of  our 
enquiry — the  historical  value  of  the  facts  related  in 
the  Gospel.  There  has  been  a  tendency  to  argue 
immediately  from  the  philosophical  and  dogmatic 
character  of  the  prologue  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Gospel  is  from  first  to  last  an  ideal  composition  ^.  In 
any  case  the  conclusion  would  be  a  hasty  one  ;  be- 
cause it  is  quite  as  likely  a /rz'^rz  that  an  author  would 
invent  metaphysics  to  suit  his  facts,  as  that  he  would 
invent  facts  to  suit  his  metaphysics.  We  do  not  sus- 
pect Comte  or  Hegel  of  inventing  history  because 
they  have  endeavoured  to  explain  it  philosophically. 
But  when  the  objection  is  especially  urged  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  is  too  often  for- 
gotten that  the  Synoptists  also  are  not  exempt  from  it. 
Of  the  three  Synoptic  writers,  St.  Luke  is  the  only 
one  who  comes  forward  as  a  professed  historian.  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  or  the  Evangelists  who  now 
bear  their  names,  proclaim  their  dogmatic  intention  in 
a  manner  that  is  really  little  less  pronounced  than 
St.  John.  When  the  fourth  Evangelist  avows  at  the 
end  of  ch.  xx,  i.  e.  in  the  verse  with  which  the  first 
draught  of  the  Gospel  concluded,  'These  things  are 
written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ 

^  Cf.  Keim,  pp.  124,  125.   Scholten  states  this  point  fairly,  p.  182. 


I.] 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


19 


the  Son  of  God,'  he  is  using  almost  exactly  the  same 
words  as  those  with  which  the  second  Gospel  opens, 
'  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God;'  and  the  modification  which  this  receives  in 
the  first  Gospel  only  corresponds  to  its  Jewish  object 
and  character,  '  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham.'     None 
of  the  Evangelists  write  otherwise  than  with  a  distinct 
dogmatic   conclusion    before   their   minds.      But   we 
cannot  argue  from  this  at  once  that  the  facts  which 
they  relate  are  fictitious,  or  even  that  they  have  been 
distorted.     In  the  case  of  the  Synoptists  we  are  able 
to  control  their  procedure  with  considerable  accuracy. 
The  groundwork  of  their  narrative  has  been  supplied 
to  all  three  by  a  single  document,  which  they  have 
used  independently  of  each  other.     We  can  therefore 
tell  by  comparing  the  parallel  columns  of  the  synopsis 
to  what  extent  changes  have  been  introduced  into 
that  document  on  dogmatic  grounds.     It  cannot  be 
said  that  such  changes  do  not   exist.     For  instance, 
'  the  Son '  is  left  out  in  Matt.  xxiv.  36  as  compared  with 
Mark  xiii.  32,  '  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth 
no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father  ;'  and  conversely  Matt.  xv.  24, 
'  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel,'  has  been  omitted  in  Mark  vii.  26,  27  ;  so  in 
Mark  vi.  3,  '  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,'  seems  to, 
have   been    substituted    for  '  the   carpenter's   son '  of 
Matt.    xiii.   55.        These   are    perhaps   the    principal 
instances  of  alterations  made  from  dogmatic  motives  ; 
and  there  are  some  others  ^.     But  altogether  they  do 

•  Cf.  Wittichen,  tjher  den  historischen  Charakter  der  Synopt.  Evangelien, 
in  yabrbucherfur  Deutsche  Theologie,  i865,  iii.  pp.  427-482. 

C  2 


St.  John  i. 
1-18. 


20 


THE  PROLOGUE. 


St.  John 
1-18. 


Metaphysi- 
cal use  of 
the  word 
Logos  con- 
fined to  the 
prologue. 


not  make  up  an  important  total.  Before  the  fact, 
then,  there  is  no  greater  reason  for  suspecting  the 
fourth  EvangeHst  than  the  Synoptists.  The  question 
must  remain  open  for  detailed  investigation,  and  is  not 
foreclosed  either  way  by  the  prologue. 

In  one  respect,  indeed,  a  favourable  conclusion  is 
suggested.  It  has  been  frequently  noticed  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  confined  strictly  to  the 
Evangelist's  own  reflections,  and  is  nowhere  intro- 
duced into  the  body  of  the  history.  The  word  Aoyo? 
occurs  repeatedly,  but  always  in  the  Jewish  sense  of 
the  message  or  command,  single  acts  and  utterances 
of  God,  but  not  in  the  Alexandrine  sense  of  a 
hypostatized  Divine  Being'.  If  the  discourses  in  the 
Gospel  had  been  really,  as  Baur  and  his  followers  think, 
free  compositions,  this  distinction  would  scarcely  have 
been  observed.  It  is  to  be  noticed  generally,  that  the 
Hellenistic  colouring  is  nowhere  so  strong  as  in  the 
prologue ;  as  though  it  served  to  indicate  the  stand- 
point of  the  writer,  but  did  not  materially  affect  his 
treatment  of  his  subject. 

^  Cf.  X.  35,  xvii.  14,  xvii.  6,  viii.  47,  viii.  55,  &c.  Also  Westcott, 
Introd,  p.  272;  Keim,  p.  124;  and  Wittichen,  p.  11. 


CHAPTER    IT. 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   JOHN. 


BEFORE  we  enter  upon  the  narrative  proper,  it 
will  be  well  to  set  before  ourselves  distinctly  the 
different  hypotheses  with  which  we  shall  have  to  deal. 
It  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  intended  his  work  to  be  attributed  to  St.  John. 
This  would  seem  to  follow  from  xxi.  24,  taken  along 
with  the  context  in  which  '  the  beloved  disciple '  is 
elsewhere  mentioned^.  He  is  never  named;  but  by 
the  prominence  accorded  to  him,  and  especially  from 
his  intimate  relation  with  Peter,  it  is  clear  that  he 
belonged  to  the  first  of  the  Apostolic  groups  ;  and 
as  Peter  and  Andrew  are  both  excluded  and  James 
fell   a   victim   to   one   of    the    earliest    persecutions, 


^  Liitzelberger  suggested  that 
'  the  beloved  disciple '  might  be 
Andrew,  and  Holtzmann  (seri- 
ously?), following  Spath.  that  he 
might  be  Nathanael.  The  argu- 
ment against  the  identification  with 
John  drawn  from  the  silence  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  as  to  scenes,  like 
the  Transfiguration,  where  accord- 
ing to  the  Synoptists  John  was 
present,  cannot  count  for  very 
much.  It  is  certain  on  other 
grounds  that  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  had  seen  the  other 


three ;  and  it  would  therefore  be  a 
sufficient  reason  for  omitting  these 
scenes  that  they  had  been  already 
adequately  narrated.  On  the  other 
hand,  Dr.  Holtzmann  rightly  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  while  the 
two  Judases  are  carefully  distin- 
guished, and  Peter  in  all  but  a 
single  passage  (i.  42)  bears  his 
double  name  Simon  Peter,  the 
Baptist  is  designated  simply  by 
the  name  of '  John,'  as  if  there  was 
only  one  John  external  to  the  au- 
thor.   Cf.  S.  B.  L.  iii.  pp.  329-332. 


St.  John  i. 
I  (>-5 1 . 

Possible 
hypotheses 
as  to  the 
author  of 
the  Gospel. 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


Self-indica- 
tion of  the 
author. 


there  seems  no  choice  but  to  identify  this  disciple 
with  the  Apostle  St.  John.  In  all  ages  up  to  the 
present  the  same  inference  has  been  drawn  ;  and  may- 
be accepted,  so  far  at  least  as  the  intention  of  the 
author  goes,  without  much  hesitation. 

But  if  this  is  the  case,  then  either  the  work  must 
be  genuine  and  apostolic,  or  else  it  must  be  a  deli- 
berate forgery.  In  using  this  term  I  do  not  wish  to 
attach  to  it  modern  associations,  but  merely  to  imply 
that  the  presumed  author  and  the  real  author  are 
different  persons.  Apart  from  any  question  as  to 
the  ethics  of  forgery,  our  view  of  the  probabilities 
of  the  case  will  be  affected  by  the  condition  of  mind 
in  which  we  suppose  the  Gospel  to  have  been  written. 
There  is,  however,  yet  a  third  hypothesis,  that  the 
Gospel  was  not  written  immediately  by  St.  John, 
but  by  a  disciple  of  his,  and  from  traditions  left  by 
him.  This  also  is  a  tenable  view ;  but  it  may  save 
confusion  if  we  leave  the  discussion  of  it  to  the  end 
of  our  enquiry,  when  we  have  only  one  other  alter- 
native with  which  to  compare  it. 

The  way  in  which  the  author  alludes  to  himself  is 
remarkable,  and  it  would  seem  as  if  it  ought  to  lead 
to  some  conclusion.  But  the  arguments  flowing  from 
it  are  too  much  matter  of  subjective  appreciation,  and 
they  are  too  variously  estimated  to  be  alleged  as 
proof  on  either  side. 

There  are  some  to  whom  the  author's  mode  of  self- 
indication  seems  a  mark  of  genuineness.  They  think 
it  too  peculiar  to  be  the  work  of  a  forger.  They  see 
in  it  a  natural  and  spontaneous  compromise  between 
dignity  and  modesty.  The  author  had  really  played 
a  prominent  part  in  the  events  he  is  describing ;  and 


II.] 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOILV. 


23 


he  wishes  to  insist  upon  this  gently,  not  obtrusively, 
but  }'et  firmly. 

But  there  are  other  critics  who  take  an  opposite 
view.  The  personality  of  the  author,  they  think,  is 
too  little  suppressed.  They  characterise  his  expe- 
dient as  '  egotism,'  '  vanity,'  '  self-assertion  '  (Eitelkeit, 
Selbst-iiberhebung  1).  And  it  seems  to  them  to  be 
more  like  the  device  of  a  forger. 

The  third  hypothesis,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  in 
any  case  exempt  from  this  objection.  But  then  it  is 
not  easy  to  determine  the  exact  relation  of  the  writer 
to  the  Apostle,  It  is  expressly  stated  in  the  supple- 
mental chapter  that  '  he  who  testified  these  things ' 
and  '  he  who  wrote  them '  were  the  same  ;  and  it  is 
difficult  to  find  room  for  a  second  person,  unless  his 
functions  were  merely  mechanical,  and  he  wrote 
directly  from  the  Apostle's  dictation. 

Without  professing  to  decide  between  the  two  con- 
flicting opinions,  we  yet  cannot  but  notice,  that  the 
expedient  is  very  far-fetched  to  be  that  of  a  forger. 
Here  at  least  we  have  some  objective  data.  In  an 
age  that  was  prolific  in  spurious  works,  there  is  none 
in  which  the  pretended  author  has  been  indicated  so 
circuitously.  To  go  back  a  little  before  the  Christian 
era,  the  apocryphal  book  of  Baruch  claims  to  have 
been  written  by  the  companion  of  Jeremiah,  in  the 
face  of  gross  and  palpable  anachronisms.  The  Psalms 
of  Solomon  are  each  of  them  headed  ^'aA/ixo?  rw 
^oKoixwv,  though  their  date  appears  to  be  fixed  at 
48  B.C.-    The  author  of  IV.  Esdras  begins, '  I  Salathiel 

'  Cf.  Keim,  i.  157;  Scholten,  p.  377;  compare  Meyer,  Conim.  pp. 
30,  6.?o. 

^  Cf.  Hilgenfeld,  Messias  Judaeorum,  pp.  xv,  xvi. 


St.  John  1 
1 9-5 1 . 


Compared 
with  that 
usual  in 
spurious 
works  of 
the  time. 


24 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[Chap. 


who  am  also  called  Ezra,'  and  then  goes  on  to  date 
his  book  by  a  vision  which  refers  either  to  the  latest 
days  of  the  Roman  Republic,  or  the  first  century  of 
the  Roman  Empire  ^  On  the  other  side  of  the 
boundary,  and  within  the  canon  itself,  the  highly 
doubtful  II.  Peter  is  ascribed  directly  to  '  Simon  Peter, 
a  servant  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.'  The  'Acts  of 
Pilate'  are  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr  as  early  as  150 
A.D.  About  the  same  time  appeared  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas,  which  opens  in  an  unblushing  manner,  '  I 
Thomas  the  Israelite.'  In  the  Protevangelium  of 
James,  the  author  tells  us  that  '  he  James,  who  wrote 
this  history  in  Jerusalem,  retired  into  the  wilderness 
during  the  tumult  which  arose  upon  the  death  of 
Herod.'  We  might  go  through  a  number  of  other 
books,  all  of  which  bear  out  their  assumption  with 
a  high  hand.  Much  allowance  it  is  true  may  be 
made  for  individual  idiosyncrasy  ;  but  it  seems  pecu- 
liarly incredible  that  a  writer  who  wished  to  carry  in 
a  number  of  novel  views  under  the  shelter  of  an 
apostolic  name,  should  have  done  so  in  such  a  timid 
and  equivocal  way.  If  the  Johannean  authorship  was 
questioned,  what  was  to  be  the  reply .-'  The  more 
novel,  the  more  dogmatic,  the  more  esoteric  his  teach- 
ing was,  the  more  the  writer  would  be  likely  to 
enforce  it  by  asseverations,  which  involved  little 
danger  of  detection,  and  little  disgrace  if  the  '  pious 
fraud'  were  exposed^. 


^  Cf.  Hilgenfeld,  Messias  Judae-  qui  Pauli  perperam  sciipta  legunt, 

orum,  pp.  liv-lxi.  exemplum    Theclae    ad    licentiam 

^  Some  disgrace  it  would  involve,  mulierum  docendi  tingendique  de- 

as  appears  from  the  history  of  the  fendunt,   sciant,  in   Asia  presbyte- 

'  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae.'     Cf  Ter-  rum,qui  eam  scripturam  construxit, 

tullian,  De  Baptismo,  17:'  Quod  si,  quasi  titulo  Pauli  de  suo  cumulans, 


II-] 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


25 


This  seems  to  me  to  be  a  real  and  appreciable 
argument;  and  there  is  another  somewhat  of  the  same 
sort,  which  arises  from  the  relation  that  the  author 
maintains  towards  the  Synoptists.  It  is  surely  im- 
probable that  a  forger  burdened  with  a  quantity  of 
doubtful  matter,  for  which  he  was  desirous  to  gain  an 
entrance,  should  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  discredit 
himself  by  contradicting  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  on 
points  which  for  his  own  peculiar  dogmas  were  in- 
different. He  w^ould  naturally  try  to  fortify  himself 
by  his  agreement  with  them  upon  neutral  ground, 
against  those  occasions  when  they  would  cease  to 
support  him.  And  yet  this  is  not  at  all  what  the 
Evangelist  has  done.  He  corrects  the  Synoptists 
expressly,  all  but  mentioning  them  by  name.  He 
frequently  makes  statements  at  variance  with  theirs ; 
and  that  in  a  quiet  unostentatious  way,  as  if  he  were 
sure  of  his  own  authority,  and  knew  that  his  bare 
word  would  be  final.  We  could  well  expect  a  forger 
to  be  positive ;  but  it  would  be  upon  a  different  set 
of  points  and  in  a  different  tone.  It  would  not  have 
been  as  to  the  details  of  his  own  imaginary  history 
—  what  was  to  be  gained  by  fighting  for  these?  He 
would  reserve  his  strength  for  the  real  object  of  battle, 
his  metaphysics,  his  propaganda  of  the  faith.  In 
exact  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  the  general 
method  of  the  Gospel  is  supposed  to  be  a  priori,  will 
be  the  difficulty  of  dealing  with  phenomena  like 
these. 

We  have  instances  of  the  procedure  in  question  in 
each  of  the  two  sections  of  narrative  in  chap.  I.     The 

convictum    et   confessum,   id   se   amore  Pauli  fecisse,  loco  decessisse.' 
(Quoted  by  Eitschl,  Entstebung  der  altkalboliscbeu  Kircbe,  p.  292.) 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 

Indepen- 
dent treat- 
ment ot'  the 
Evangelical 
matter. 


Instanced  in 
two  cases. 


26 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 


description  that  is  given  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Baptist  is  not  essentially  different  from  that  of  the 
Synoptists ;  but  it  is  narrated  only  from  a  single  point 
of  view.  There  is  no  picture  of  the  Baptist's  person, 
no  preliminary  account  of  his  baptism,  no  mention  of 
those  different  classes  of  men  who  attended  it,  none  of 
either  the  general  or  special  exhortations  addressed  to 
them.  The  preaching  of  repentance  retires  into  the 
background.  For  our  Evangelist  it  has  lost  its  in- 
terest ;  his  attention  is  concentrated  upon  one  point 
— the  relation  of  the  Baptist  to  the  coming  Messiah. 
The  Synoptists  had  indicated  the  outline  that  the 
fourth  Gospel  fills  in.  But  here  the  circumstances 
are  recorded  with  much  greater  fulness  and  exact- 
ness. The  testimony  of  John  to  our  Lord  is  given 
on  both  its  sides ;  as  brought  out  by  the  questions 
put  to  him  by  the  Jewish  deputation ;  and  as  given 
independently  by  himself  in  his  own  prophetic  cha- 
racter. Thus  the  rough  and  summary  statement  of 
the  Synoptists  is  divided  and  particularized.  But 
the  Evangelist  has  gone  further  than  this.  He  has 
incorporated  one  sentence  into  his  narrative  which  is 
almost  a  contradiction  of  the  Synoptists  in  terms. 
Among  other  questions  put  to  elicit  from  the  Bap- 
tist his  own  view  of  the  nature  of  his  mission,  he 
is  asked,  whether  he  is  Elias ;  and  he  is  made  to 
answer  with  a  direct  negative,  '  I  am  not.'  Now,  if 
we  turn  to  Matt.  xi.  14,  we  find  there  the  solemn  and 
authoritative  assertion,  '  If  ye  will  receive  it,  this  is 
that  Elias  which  was  for  to  come.'  We  are  not  con- 
cerned at  present  to  discuss  the  historical  character  of 
either  of  these  sayings,  or  the  question  how  far  they 
may  exclude  each  other.     All  we  have  to  do  with 


II.] 


THE   TESTIMONY  OI  JOHN. 


27 


now  is  the  relation  of  the  fourth  EvangeHst  to  the 
Synoptists.  And  I  think  we  may  fairly  say,  that  a 
forger,  with  unbounded  liberty  of  choice,  would  not 
have  been  likely  to  run,  or  to  seem  to  run,  so  directly 
into  collision  with  them. 

In  the  second  section  of  the  narrative,  the  account 
of  the  call  of  the  four  chief  Apostles,  and  a  fifth 
Nathanael,  who  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  the  same 
as  Bartholomew,  the  relation  is  similar.  Many  critics, 
including  even  Meyer,  are  ready  to  maintain  that  this 
account  and  that  of  the  call  of  the  same  four  Apostles 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  irreconcilable.  Certainly 
they  are  different :  and  if  they  are  reconciled,  it  must 
be  by  assuming  that  two  distinct  occurrences  are 
alluded  to.  But,  supposing  the  fourth  Gospel  to  be  a 
purely  ideal  composition,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the 
author  should  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  raise 
suspicions  against  his  own  veracity.  Dogmatic  rea- 
sons can  hardly  have  weighed  with  him  ;  for  what 
could  be  more  impressive,  more  truly  worthy  to  mark 
the  founding  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  than  that  brief 
imperative  '  Follow  Me '  of  the  Synoptists  ? 

But  it  is  not  as  if  these  passages  stood  alone. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  many  others,  as  we 
go  on.  Throughout  the  Gospel  we  find  the  same 
freedom  and  independence  of  treatment.  The  Evan- 
gelist seems  neither  to  court  nor  to  shun  the  support 
of  the  Synoptists.  Sometimes  he  agrees  with  them, 
sometimes  he  does  not :  but  in  both  cases  the  relation 
is  equally  unsought.  There  is  no  trace  of  any  system 
of  compensations  or  economizing,  as  if  he  had  said  to 
himself,  I  will  follow  the  Synoptists  here  in  order  that 
I  may  differ  from  them  with  more  licence  there.     His 


St.  John  i. 


A  charac- 
teristic of 
the  Gospel. 


28 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51- 

And  a  mark 
of  Apostolic 
authorship. 


Nationality 
9f  the 
author  and 
place  in  the 
develop- 
ment of 
Christianity. 

The  evi- 
dence of 
language 
and  style. 


procedure  is  too  irregular  to  have  any  discoverable 
motive.  We  may  call  it  either  caprice  or  independ- 
ence. But  a  forger  could  not  afford  to  be  capricious  : 
and  of  all  men  the  one  most  likely  to  'hold  on  his 
rank '  without  regard  to  his  predecessors  or  to  popular 
opinion,  would  be  the  last  surviving  Apostle. 

We  will  now  direct  our  attention  to  another  side  of 
the  subject.  Do  these  two  sections  of  the  narrative 
tell  us  anything  as  to  the  nationality  of  the  author, 
or  as  to  his  place  in  regard  to  the  development  of 
Christian  ideas .'' 

And  here  we  may  insert,  first,  a  few  words  on  the 
philological  question,  as  to  the  nationality  disclosed 
by  the  language  and  style  in  which  the  Gospel  is 
written.  This  is  a  point  that  must  be  settled  by  the 
appeal  to  authority ;  and  fortunately  it  is  one  on 
which  the  later  critics  seem  to  be  pretty  unanimous. 
Representatives  of  such  different  schools  as  Luthardt, 
Ewald,  Wittichen  and  Keim,  all  speak  to  the  same 
effect.  As  far  back  as  Grotius  the  true  character  of 
the  language  seems  to  have  been  discovered.  'Sermo 
Graecus  quidem,'  he  writes,  '  sed  plane  adumbratus  ex 
Syriaco  illius  saeculi^'  The  Greek  is  purer  than  that 
of  the  Synoptists,  not  so  pure  or  so  characteristic  as 
that  of  St.  Paul.  The  Hebraism  comes  out  less  in  the 
vocabulary,  than  in  the  construction  of  the  sentences, 
the  fondness  for  parallel  clauses,  the  frequent  repe- 
tition of  the  same  thought,  with  some  slight  modifi- 
cation of  sense  or  form,  the  simple  modes  of  conjunc- 
tion, the  absence  of  complicated  periods.  '  The  lan- 
guage of  the  book,'  says  Keim,  '  is  a  reconciliation  of 

^  Quoted  by  Liicke,  i.  172. 


II.] 


TFTE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


29 


the  parties  (Jew  and  Greek)  in  itself,  so  marvellously 
does  it  combine  the  facility  and  address  of  genuine 
Greek  with  the  childlike  simplicity,  the  figurativcness, 
}'es  and  the  "  gaucherie  "  (Unbeholfenheit)  of  Hebrew^' 
Ewald  expresses  himself  similarly.  It  is  Hebrew  in 
a  Greek  dress — easily  worn.  The  Greek  has  been 
learnt  somewhat  late  in  life,  and  has  been  fitted  on  to 
a  framework  of  Hebrew'-.  Luthardt  describes  this  by 
a  different  metaphor :  he  says,  that  'a  soul  of  Hebrew 
lives  in  it.'  '  The  imagery  and  modes  of  thought  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  are  rooted  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  have  grown  up  out  of  the  prophecy  of  the  Old 
Testament^.'  M.  Wittichen,  one  of  the  latest  writers 
on  the  fourth  Gospel,  has  gone  carefully  into  this 
part  of  the  subject ;  and  gives  a  list  of  expressions 
which  betray  a  specifically  Hebrew  origin.  Speaking 
of  the  number  of  conceptions  peculiar  to  Hebrew 
theology,  he  adds  ;  '  the  certainty  and  precision  with 
which  the  author  employs  these  conceptions,  makes 
the  supposition  that  he  was  a  Gentile  Christian, 
acquainted  with  Jewish  literature,  impossible :  in 
order  to  convince  ourselves  of  this  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  compare  the  misuse  of  Hebrew  conceptions  in 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  V 

Philology  thus  seems  to  point  to  a  Jew,  who  some- 
what late  in  life  had  mixed  much  with  Greeks,  and 
was  familiar  with  their  language.  How  far  is  this 
conclusion  borne  out  by  the  narrative  .-' 

It  must  have  been  difficult  for  any  one  but  a  born 
Jew  to  write  the  account  of  the  dialogue  with  the 


St.  John 

19-51- 


'  yem  von  Nazara,  i.  1 16,  1 1  7. 
^  yohann.  Schriften,  pp.  44-47. 
'  Lulhardt,  pp.  61,  65. 


*  Ev.  Job.  5-7.  The  sentence 
quoted  is  endorsed  by  Holtzmann, 
i>.  B.  L.  iii.  336. 


St.  John  i. 


vv.  19-2S. 


30 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51- 


deputation  from  Jerusalem.  In  order  to  do  so  he 
must  have  employed  an  amount  of  careful  research 
and  self-projection  which  was  foreign  to  the  literary- 
habits  and  spirit  of  the  age.  The  character  of  the 
Jewish  Messianic  expectations  is  accurately  rendered. 
Both  the  questions  and  their  sequence — first,  '  Art 
thou  the  Christ  .-* '  then,  '  Art  thou  Elias  or  that  (the) 
prophet }  '-^correspond  to  the  Rabbinical  theories  in 
vogue,  as  we  see  them  depicted  as  well  in  Jewish 
literature  as  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
By '  the  prophet '  is  meant  the  second  Moses.  Some- 
times this  second  Moses  is  identified  with  Elias, — as 
also  with  the  Messiah  himself, — but  more  frequently 
both  are  to  reappear.  Allusions  to  the  expected 
return  of  Elias  are  scattered  throughout  the  Mishnah  ^. 
In  IV.  Esdras  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  heralded 
by  'those  who  have  not  seen  death,'  i.e.  Henoch,  Moses, 
and  Elias  -.  So  in  the  Apocalypse  we  have  the  two 
witnesses,  again  representing  Moses  and  Elias,  whose 
martyrdom  is  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  end  '^.  In 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  idea  is  embodied  in  the 
Transfiguration,  and  is  found  repeatedly"*.  We  are 
told  expressly  in  Matt.  xvii.  10,  that  the  return  of 
Elias  was  a  current  belief  And  in  the  Acts  the  verse 
Deut.  xviii.  15  is  twice  cited  in  proof  that  a  Messianic 
advent  was  to  be  expected  ^ 

The  prophet  is  an  expression  which  clearly  betrays 
its  Jewish  origin.  The  Evangelist  never  thinks  to 
define  ^vhat  prophet.  It  is  a  familiar  phrase  to  him  ; 
and  he  forgets  that  it  may  not  be  equally  so  to  his 
readers. 

1  Cf.  Hitzig  on  Mai.  iv.  5.  ^  vi.  26,  Lat.  '  Rev.  xi.  2-12. 

*  Cf.  Matt.  xi.  14;  xvii.  10-13.  ^  Cf.  Acts  iii.  22;  vii.  37. 


ir.l 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


31 


A  like  conclusion  is  required  by  ver.  25,  '  Why  bap- 
tizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  (the)  Christ,  nor 
Elias,  neither  that  (the)  prophet?'  There  do  not  seem 
to  be  any  parallels  forthcoming  for  the  limitation  of 
the  right  to  baptize  ;  which  is  the  less  surprising 
when  we  consider  how  scanty  are  the  materials  that 
throw  any  light  upon  the  subject  of  pre-Christian 
baptism  at  all.  But  the  precision  with  which  the 
question  is  stated  is  evidence  of  its  truth  ;  and  it 
will  hardly  be  maintained  that  the  Pharisees'  scruple 
has  been  invented  to  suit  the  occasion.  It  does  how- 
ever seem  to  be  clear,  in  spite  of  the  obscurity  in 
which  the  origin  of  baptism  is  involved,  that  it  must 
have  had  a  specifically  Messianic  application.  It 
appears  to  have  been  founded  upon  Messianic  pro- 
phecies, such  as  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25-30,  'Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean  :  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I 
give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  : 
and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh,'  &c.^  And 
Zech,  xiii,  i,  '  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  fountain 
opened  to  the  house  of  David,  and  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness.'  In  any 
case  the  baptism  of  John  was  an  act  of  bold  and 
searching  reformation,  for  which  the  Pharisees  would 
naturally  demand  an  authority ;  and  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  baptism  with  water  and  that  higher 
baptism  which  was  reserved  for  the  Messiah,  is  fully 


*  This  passage  was  applied  to  the  Messianic  time.     So  also  Zech. 
ix.  6.     Cf.  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  p.  522. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


32 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


vv.  29-34. 


confirmed  by  the  Synoptists.     A  Gentile,  dealing  with 
these  ideas,  would  soon  have  been  at  fault. 

Another  point  to  be  noticed  is  the  composition  of 
the  deputation.  '  The  Jews  sent  priests  and  Levites,' 
'  and  they  that  were  sent  were  of  the  Pharisees.' 
Suspicion  has  indeed  attached  to  the  mention  of 
'  priests  and  Levites,'  instead  of  '  scribes  ^ :'  but  the 
facts  when  examined  explain  and  so  verify  them- 
selves. We  can  hardly  suppose  that  this  was  a  formal 
deputation  sent  officially  by  the  Sanhedrim,  because 
it  is  confined  to  a  single  party.  But  that  party  was 
so  large  and  influential  that  its  emissaries  would  carry 
with  them  an  almost  representative  importance.  As 
coming  from  the  metropolis  the  deputation  would  be 
opposed  to  those  self-constituted  bodies,  made  up  of 
provincial  partisans,  readers  in  the  synagogue,  with 
here  and  there  a  wandering  priest  or  Pharisee  from 
Jerusalem,  who  appear  so  frequently  among  the  Gali- 
lean scenery  of  the  Synoptists.  What  the  scribes 
were  in  the  provinces  the  priests  were  at  Jerusalem  ; 
and  it  was  only  natural  that  the  enquiry  should  fall 
into  their  hands. 

In  passing  to  the  next  paragraph,  we  are  struck  at 
once  by  the  Baptist's  exclamation,  '  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.'  We 
must  not  stay  at  present  to  discuss  its  authenticity, 
but  content  ourselves  with  observing  that,  whatever 
its  historical  character,  it  belongs  entirely  to  the 
sphere  of  Jewish  conceptions.  It  is  evidently  based 
on  Isaiah  liii.  In  ver.  30  the  idea  of  pre-existence  in 
the  phrase,  '  For  He  was  before  me,'  may  be  bor- 

1  Cf.  Lucke,  i.  381  n. 


II.] 


Tim   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


33 


rowed  from  the  theology  of  the  prologue.  But  we 
arc  carried  back  on  to  Jewish  ground  immediately  in 
the  verse  following,  '  But  that  He  should  be  mani- 
fested to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water.'  We  compare  with  the  first  clause  the  words 
which  close  the  Judaistic  document  at  the  beginning 
of  St.  Luke'  ;  the  second  refers  to  the  Messianic  sig- 
nificance of  baptism. 

He  that  sent  vie  to  baptize  is  the  old  Hebrew  con- 
ception of  the  prophet.  The  descent  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  form  of  a  dove  presents  a  combination  of  meta- 
phors, that  of  alighting  as  if  from  flight  and  that  of 
brooding,  which  is  familiar  to  Hebrew  poetry,  and 
especially  in  relation  to  the  gift  or  operation  of  Spirit^. 
The  full  symbolism  of  the  '  dove '  is  not  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  but  had  been  introduced  in  the  in- 
terval between  the  Old  and  the  New,  and  appears  in 
the  Talmud  and  Targums.  We  may  suppose  that 
there  was  some  visible,  and  perhaps  miraculous  ap- 
pearance, which  through  the  train  of  associations 
excited  in  the  minds  of  the  bystanders,  embodied  itself 
to  them  as  the  '  descent  of  a  dove.' 


I 


'  Luke  i.  80,  t03%  ^/xepas  ava^ti- 
(eois  aiiTov  irpus  ruv  'IffparjK — iva 
fpavfpojdrj  Tw  'lapa-qX  (John).  We 
mit^ht  imagine  that  the  two  phrases 
were  translations  of  the  same  Ara- 
maic original. 

^  Cf.  Gen.  i.  2,  Ts.  xl.  2,  xlii.  i, 
and  compare  the  quotations  given 
by  Liicke  (i.  426),  from  Talmudical 
and  Rabbinical  writers.  '  The 
Spirit  of  God  hovered  over  the 
waters,  as  a  dove  hovereth  over  her 
young,  and  touchcth  them  not.' 
Tract.  Chagig.  c.  2,  etc. ;  cf.  also 
Keim,  i.  539.  To  suppose  a  real 
descent  of  a  real  dove,  which  is 
asserted   by    Ellicott    and   Alford 


somewhat  vehemently,  appears  to 
me  to  reduce  the  sacred  narrative 
to  the  level  of  legend  :  and  though 
nothing  should  be  rejected  on  purely 
a  priori  grounds,  still  it  is  fair  to 
make  a  certain  allowance  for  be- 
liefs which  the  Evangelists  shared 
with  iheir  countrymen.  Before  the 
aai^ariKU)  fi8ei  of  St.  Luke  is  al- 
lowed to  decide  the  question,  we 
must  know  from  what  source  it  is 
derived.  St.  Luke  is  here  using 
the  same  document  as  the  other 
Synoptists,  but  seems  to  have  re- 
produced it  in  somewhat  loose 
and  in  this  case  amplified  para- 
phrase. 


St.  John  i 
19-51. 


D 


34 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOim. 


[chap. 


The  mode  of  address  attributed  to  the  two  disciples 
of  John  is  such  as  Jewish  scholars  would  use  to  a 
Jewish  teacher.  We  cannot  insist  upon  the  note  of 
time  in  the  next  verse,  because  there  is  a  suggestion 
that  St.  John  used  not  the  Jewish  but  the  Roman 
mode  of  reckoning  \  The  weight  of  critical  authority 
seems  to  be  against  this  suggestion  :  but  if  it  were 
true,  it  would  not  militate  against  the  Jewish  origin 
of  the  author.  It  would  only  determine  the  kind  of 
readers  for  whom  the  gospel  was  intended,  and  show 
that  the  author  was  sufficiently  familiar  with  their 
customs  to  adapt  his  narrative  readily  to  them.  In 
fact,  it  would  go  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that  has 
been  indicated  for  us  hitherto,  that  the  Gospel  was 
written  in  Asia  Minor  by  a  Jew  who  had  been  for 
some  time  resident  there. 

We  notice  that  the  names  of  persons  and  places  are 
handled  with  ease  and  precision  :  Philip,  Andrew,  and 
Peter  come  from  Bethsaida  :  Nathanael  knows  the 
ill-repute  in  which  Nazareth  is  held.  He  himself  is 
saluted  as  a  '  true  Israelite.'     Returning  a  few  verses. 


^  On  carefully  reconsidering  this 
question,  especially  with  reference 
to  the  arguments  of  Wieseler  {Bei- 
ti-iige,  p.  252  foil.),  I  am  inclined 
to  think  it  at  least  possible  that  the 
Evangelist  has  followed  through- 
out the  Gospel,  not  the  Jewish,  but 
the  Roman  civil  day,  which  began 
from  midnight  like  ours.  Among 
other  evidence  to  show  that  the 
use  was  widely  diffused.  Dr.  Wie- 
seler quotes  especially  Strabo  ii. 
34  foil.,  a  native  of  Asia  Minor 
and  the  younger  Pliny  wiiting  from 
that  province,  Ep.  vii.  9.  The 
supposition  that  St.  John  has 
adopted   this   mode   of  reckoning 


certainly  makes  the  haiTnony  of  the 
Gospels  easier  in  regard  to  the 
events  of  the  Passion — a  fact  which 
ought  not  to  tell  against  it  where 
two  such  statements  as  John  xix.  14, 
and  Mark  xv.  25,  both  bear  the 
character  of  authenticity.  It  also 
removes  a  very  slight  difficulty  in 
regard  to  John  iv.  52.  The  coun- 
ter argument  of  Meyer,  drawn  from 
xi.  9,  {•  Are  there  not  twelve  hours 
in  the  day  ?')  proves  nothing,  be- 
cause such  an  expression  might  be 
used  as  well  by  us  as  by  the  Jews, 
speaking  of  the  average  length  of 
the  working  day.  Still  a  '  non 
liquet/  must,  I  think,  be  the  verdict. 


II.] 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JOILV. 


35 


we  find  that  Andrew  greets  his  brother  Peter  with 
the  announcement  that  he  has  found  the  Messiah.  In 
Hke  manner  PhiHp  tells  Nathanael  that  he  has  found 
'  Him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets, 
did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph^' — a 
most  correct  representation  of  the  current  phraseology, 
both  in  regard  to  the  divisions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  application  of  the  Messianic  idea.  Again 
Nathanael,  convinced  that  it  is  really  the  Messiah  to 
whom  he  is  speaking,  answers,  '  Rabbi,  thou  art  the 
Son  of  God  ;  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel ;'  and  the 
promise  with  which  his  faith  is  rewarded,  takes  a 
strictly  Jewish  form  ;  '  Hereafter  ye  shall  see  heaven 
opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  de- 
scending upon  the  Son  of  Man,'  i.e.  in  accordance 
with  the  apocalyptic  vision  of  Dan.  vii.  13,  14. 

But  there  is  something  more  in  these  passages  than 
the  single  inference  that  has  been  drawn  from  them. 
They  not  only  give  us  information  respecting  the 
Evangelist's  nationality ;  they  also  help  to  fix  his 
date.  The  Messianic  idea  is  throughout  regarded 
from  the  stand-point  of  the  contemporaries  as  well  as 
of  the  countrymen  of  Jesus  Himself.  '  The  King  of 
Israel,'  '  He  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets did  write,'  the  speculations  as  to  the  place 
where  the  Messiah  was  to  be  born,  as  to  the  fore- 
runner and  the  rite  of  baptism,  are  reproduced  with 
far  too  much  freshness  and  vigour  to  be  a  product  of 
the  second  century.  The  phrase  '  King  of  Israel '  is 
especially  important,  because  it  breathes  those  politico- 

'  We  may  notice  by  the  way  early  began  to  be  afraid.  We  saw- 
that  the  '  Son  of  Joseph '  was  a  how  it  had  been  altered  in  Mark 
phrase  of  which  orthodox  writers     vi.  3. 

D  2 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


36 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN: 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


vv.  14,  16, 

17. 


Relation  of 
the  Evan- 
gelist to  the 
Law. 


theocratic  hopes,  which  since  the  taking  of  Jerusalem, 
Christians  at  least,  if  not  Jews,  must  have  entirely  laid 
aside.  It  belongs  to  the  lowest  stratification  of 
Christian  ideas,  before  Christianity  was  separated 
from  Judaism  ;  and  there  was  but  one  generation  of 
Christians  to  whom  it  would  have  any  meaning. 

We  have  seen  in  the  historical  part  of  the  chapter 
the  contemporary  of  Jesus ;  by  glancing  back  for  a 
moment  to  the  end  of  the  prologue,  we  shall  see  the 
Evangelist  at  another  stage  as  the  contemporary  of 
St.  Paul.  '  And  of  His  fulness  have  we  all  received, 
and  grace  for  grace  (i.e.  grace  succeeding  grace,  con- 
stant streams  or  successions  of  grace).  For  the  law 
was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by 
Jesus  Christ.'  Compare  the  first  part  of  this  with  two 
of  St.  Paul's  later  epistles,  Col.  i.  19,  '  For  it  pleased  the 
Father  that  in  Him  should  all  fulness  [iiav  to  -nX-qpoiyi.a) 
dwell,'  and  Eph.  i.  6,  7,  '  To  the  praise  of  the  glory  of 
His  grace,  wherein  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the 
Beloved.  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  His 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches 
of  His  grace ;'  and  the  second  part  with  one  of  the 
earlier  epistles,  Rom,  v.  20,  21,  'Moreover  the  law 
entered,  that  the  ofTence  might  abound.  But  where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound  :  That  as 
sin  has  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign 
through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.'  In  these  three  passages  we  have  each  of 
the  three  ideas,  (i.)  participation  in  the  Divine  Pleroma, 
(ii.)  the  outpouring  of  grace,  (iii.)  the  contrast  between 
the  two  dispensations,  founded  especially  upon  this 
outpouring. 

On  a  superficial  view  we  might  suppose  that  the 


11.] 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


37 


Evangelist  had  copied  or  imitated  St.  Paul;  but  there  is 
much  more  reason  to  regard  his  doctrine  as  an  inde- 
pendent and  parallel  development.  The  characteristic 
of  the  Johannean  theology  generally  is  isolation — 
isolation  in  the  midst  of  manifold  contact  and  affinity. 
It  seems  to  touch  all  systems,  but  to  be  affiliated  upon 
none.  And  so  here,  the  conception,  though  parallel 
to,  is  yet  not  the  same  as  that  of  St.  Paul.  There  are 
two  chief  points  of  difference.  St.  Paul  looks  upon 
the  gift  of  grace  especially  as  dependent  upon  the 
act  of  Atonement,  of  Redemption.  'St.  John  rather 
regards  it  as  radiated  from  the  Person  of  Christ,  as 
the  Centre  of  light  or  Revelation.  And  St.  John's 
(i.e.  the  Evangelist's)  relation  to  the  Law  is  much  less 
negative,  much  more  neutral.  He  does  not  speak  of 
its  condemnatory  character.  It  had  not  been  a  burden 
to  him,  as  it  had  to  St.  Paul ;  and  consequently  he 
has  not  known  the  struggle  to  free  himself  from  it. 
He  has  slipped  his  chains,  and  not  burst  them.  He 
looks  upon  the  Law  simply  as  a  part  of  the  great 
preparation  for  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  Johannean 
conception  seems  to  lie  midway  between  that  of  St. 
Paul  and  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  we 
may  say  that  St.  Paul  insists  chiefly  on  t\\Q  paedagogic 
function  of  the  Law,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
chiefly  on  its  typical  function,  then  we  shall  say  that 
that  which  is  most  prominent  with  St.  John  is  rather 
\\.s  prophetic  function  \ 

But  the  interest  that  the  Evangelist  still  takes  in 

the   relation  of  Christianity  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  his 

broad  view  of  the  course  of  human  history  in  which 

these  are   interwoven,  and  his  profound  insight  into 

^  Compare  e.g.  Gal.  iii.  24,  Heb.  x.  i,  John  xii.  41. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 

Compared 
with  th.it  of 
St.  Paul. 


And  the 

Apostolic 

Fathers. 


38 


THE    TESTIMOXY  OF  yJlLY. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-5'- 


Incidental 
use  of  the 
first  person. 


the  nature  and  purpose  of  Christianity  as  a  revelation, 
are  all  marks  of  the  apostolic,  as  opposed  to  the  sub- 
and  post-apostolic  ages,  which  we  find  taken  up  rather 
with  homilies  on  minor  morals,  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline, and  Chiliastic  or  semi-Gnostic  dreams^. 

We  return  once  more  to  the  text  of  the  narrative  in 
order  to  enquire  into  its  historical  character.  I  think 
it  will  be  a  favourable  impression  that  is  conveyed  at 
the  outset,  by  the  use  of  the  first  person  plural  in  the 
prologue.  It  comes  in  naturally  and  unobtrusively  in 
ver.  14,  'The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
lis  (and  we  beheld  His  glory  . . .),  full  of  grace  and  truth 
.  .  .  and  of  His  fulness  have  all  we  received,'  &c.  It 
would  be  possible,  though  not  probable,  that  the 
author  was  speaking,  not  for  himself  and  his  country- 
men and  contemporaries,  but  for  the  whole  human 
race.  This  explanation,  however,  seems  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  the  parallel  afforded  in  the  opening  to  the 
First  Epistle,  '  That  which  was  from  the  beginning, 
which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our 
eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have 
handled,  of  the  Word  of  life  ;  (For  the  life  was  mani- 


*  This  would  seem  to  be  a  fair 
description  of  the  contents  of  the 
writings  of  the  (so  called)  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  the  Epistle  of  Cle- 
ment to  the  Corinthians,  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas,  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  and  that  of 
Barnabas.  This  last  takes  an 
almost  Gnostic  view  of  the  Law. 
'  The  covenant  with  Israel  was 
never  concluded.  It  was  broken 
off,- when  Moses  broke  the  tables 
of  stone.  Instead  of  the  moral 
law,  the  ceremonial  law  was  given 


them,  and  that  they  misunderstood 
by  interpreting  it  carnally.  They 
erred  because  an  evil  spirit  de- 
ceived them  '  {irapt^rjaav  ore  ayyt- 
\os  iTovTj.ios  i(Tu(ptatv  avrovs.  Barn, 
ix.)  Cf.  Wittichen,  pp.  25-29,  who 
insists  strongly  upon  this  argu- 
ment, as  proving  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  cannot  belong  to  the  period 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  He  takes 
his  stand  upon  the  very  able  dis- 
cussion of  Ritschl,  Enlslehnng  der 
allka/holiichen  Kircbe,  pp.  274- 
311- 


I 


II.] 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHiV. 


39 


fcsted,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and 
shew  unto  you  that  eternal  life,  which  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us  ;)  That  which  we 
have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you.'  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  think  that  this  is  not  bond  fide.  The  boldness 
of  the  emphatic  iteration  in  the  one  passage,  and  the 
subtle  half-unconscious  slipping-in  of  the  first  person 
in  the  other,  are  equally  beyond  the  reach  of  a  forger, 
and  do  not  at  all  bear  the  character  of  fiction. 

We  have  already  touched  upon  the  curious  contra- 
diction of  the  Synoptists  contained  in  the  answer  of 
the  Baptist,  that  he  is  not  Elias.  The  two  passages 
do  not  really  exclude  each  other,  any  more  than  the 
Baptist's  disclaimer  in  the  one  case  is  inconsistent 
with  his  avowal  in  the  other,  when  he  says,  '  I  am 
the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness ...  as  said 
the  prophet  Esaias.'  Probably  the  Jews  themselves 
had  no  very  definite  idea  of  what  they  meant,  when 
they  said  that  Elias  would  come  again  before  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah,  The  evidence  of  his  own 
consciousness  would  prevent  the  Baptist  from  claim- 
ing pre-existence ;  and  he  was  not  perhaps  prepared 
to  apply  the  name  to  himself  metaphorically.  Both 
statements,  that  in  St.  John  and  that  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  seem  to  come  in  naturally  in  their  places ; 
and  the  second  rather  confirms  the  first,  for  the  rea- 
son already  noticed,  as  proving  the  independence  of 
the  testimony.  It  is  not  likely  that  a  later  writer 
would  incur  the  charge  of  contradicting  a  recognised 
authority,  unless  he  were  led  to  do  so  by  his  know- 
ledge of  the  actual  fact. 

There  is  more  difiiculty  in  the  other  saying  attri- 
buted to  the  Baptist,  '  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that 


St.  John  i. 
19-51- 


The  Baptist 
as  Elias. 


'  The  Lamb 
of  God." 


40 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.'  It  is  evidently 
based  upon  Isaiah  liii.  But  if  we  are  to  suppose  that 
it  contains  a  matured  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  it 
would  be  highly  improbable  that  the  words  had  been 
actually  spoken  as  they  are  recorded.  Inspiration, 
so  far  as  we  can  judge  of  it  historically,  is  not  found 
to  act  so  violently,  overleaping  all  conditions  of  time 
and  circumstance.  The  conception  of  a  suffering 
Messiah,  if  it  had  ever  existed,  was  dormant  in  the 
popular  mind  ;  and  though  the  Baptist  may  have  had 
glimmerings  of  it,  seen  through  the  prophecies  of  the 
second  Isaiah  and  some  of  the  Psalms,  still  these 
must  have  been  in  any  case  vague  and  indistinct. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  remark,  that  the 
form  and  mould  of  the  salutation  is  entirely  prophetic, 
and  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  other  utterances  of 
the  Baptist.  This  single  pregnant  ejaculatory  sen- 
tence is  precisely  what  we  should  expect  from  him. 
And  it  is  not  necessary  to  read  into  it  a  greater 
amount  of  meaning  than  it  contains.  We  might 
conceive  the  process  by  which  it  came  to  be  formed 
thus.  The  Baptist  has  been  meditating  in  the  soli- 
tude of  the  desert  on  those  passages  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures  which  seemed  and  were  then  thought  to 
have  reference  to  the  Messiah.  Among  these,  this 
one  in  particular,  Isaiah  liii,  would  present  difficulties 
to  him  ;  it  would  seem  to  connect  with  the  '  servant  of 
Jehovah'  ideas  of  debasement  and  suffering  that  had 
no  place  in  the  popular  conception.  He  has  pon- 
dered over  it  long  and  deeply,  and  not  yet  been  able 
to  find  a  solution.  Suddenly  he  sees  in  the  crowd 
the  face  of  One,  whom  he  had  known  perhaps  in  his 
youth,  and  whom  he  had  recently  under  marvellous 


n.] 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHK. 


41 


circumstances  baptized  ;  but  never  before  had  he 
been  impressed  in  such  an  indescribable  manner  as 
now.  There  is  something  in  the  face  and  figure ; 
something  perhaps  in  its  singular  meekness  and  lowli- 
ness of  mien  ;  something  also,  it  may  be,  in  lines  that 
seem  to  foretell  of  suffering,  that  fills  him  with 
strange  presentiment.  A  thousand  different  currents 
of  association,  the  product  of  a  life  of  retirement  and 
reflection,  strike  into  one.  The  thought  rushes  in 
upon  him,  and  before  he  knows  what  he  is  saying,  he 
has  given  it  expression :  '  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God, 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ! '  It  is  a 
touch  of  the  true  prophetic  inspiration.  The  prophet 
himself  knows  not  whence  it  came  nor  whither  it 
tends.  He  cannot  wholly  analyse  his  ow'n  words.  In 
a  calmer  moment,  when  despondency  has  taken  the 
place  of  hope,  and  the  Messiah,  to  whom  he  had 
testified,  has  seemed  to  disappoint  his  expectations 
by  a  career  different  from  that  which  he  had  anti- 
cipated, they  do  not  prevent  him  from  feeling  a  cer- 
tain misgiving,  and  from  yielding  so  far  to  his  doubts 
as  to  send  two  of  his  disciples  to  put  the  question 
directly,  'Art  thou  He  that  should  come,  or  do  we 
look  for  another.''' 

All  this  is  true  to  human  nature.  No  man  remains 
constantly  at  the  level  of  his  highest  instincts  and 
intuitions.  They  do  not  indeed  leave  him  un- 
changed ;  and  yet  they  cannot  always  retain  their 
illuminating  power.  Such  may  well  have  been  that 
which  inspired  the  exclamation  of  the  Baptist.  It 
would  be  a  mistake  to  attempt  to  give  it  too  precise  a 
signification.  All  we  can  say  of  it  is,  that  it  is  an 
application  of  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah,  that  has  been 


St.  John  i. 
19-51- 


42 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 

The  Johan- 
iiean  version 
of  the  call 
of  the  chief 
Apostles. 


fulfilled  by  the  event  in  a  way  surpassing  all  that  its 
author  could  consciously  intend  or  foresee. 

The  call  of  the  four  Apostles  is  the  second  subject 
on  which  we  found  a  discrepancy  between  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  and  the  Fourth.  But  here  again  there  is 
no  sufficient  reason  to  suppose  that  the  discrepancy 
extends  below  the  surface.  Obviously  the  events  are 
different ;  but  the  two  accounts  are  not  such  as  to 
exclude,  though  they  may  perhaps  somewhat  modify, 
each  other.  If  we  are  to  believe  the  express  state- 
ment of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  Synoptists  have 
missed  out  a  whole  section  of  the  life  of  our  Lord 
from  His  baptism  by  John,  until  after  the  Baptist  was 
cast  into  prison.  This  section  would  cover  not  much 
less  than  three  quarters  of  a  year.  During  that  time 
the  disciples  have  accompanied  Jesus  into  Judaea,  and 
returned  through  Samaria  into  Galilee.  The  little 
company  has  been  for  a  time  perhaps  broken  up  ;  and 
the  disciples  have  gone  to  their  homes.  The  account 
in  the  Synoptists  is  that  of  a  second  summons,  to  an 
attachment  of  a  closer  and  more  permanent  character, 
which  is  before  very  long  defined  by  the  formal  selec- 
tion and  separation  of  the  Twelve.  When  we  con- 
sider the  extreme  fragmentariness  and  incompleteness 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  based  as  they  are  upon  a 
document  which  was  itself  a  collection  of  fragments  ^, 


^  This  is  seen.  e.g.  from  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  chronology 
of  Wieseler  and  Ellicott,  Mark  vi. 
31-vii.  23,  represents  the  events  of 
two  days,  while  vii.  23-ix.  repre- 
sents those  of  six  months,  and 
X.  1-45  an  equal  period.  No  sys- 
tem of  chronology  can  make  the 
proportion  very  different.  A  simple 
inspection   of  the   notes   of  place 


and  time  generally,  and  of  the 
phrases  which  connect  the  several 
sections  of  the  narrative,  will  show 
how  fragmentaiy  the  record  is. 
According  to  the  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  was 
made  up  of  notes  taken  down  by 
the  Evangelist  at  various  times 
from  the  preaching  of  St.  Peter. 
Cf.  Papias  in  Euseb.  in.  39. 


II.] 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


43 


there  will  be  nothing  improbable  in  this.  The  notes 
of  time  at  the  beginning  of  their  narrative  are  wholly 
vague  :  '  Now  after  that  John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesus 
came  into  Galilee.'  The  very  phrase,  '  came  into 
Galilee,'  confirms  the  account  in  St.  John,  according 
to  which  our  Lord  had  been  previously  in  Judaea. 
And  the  Fourth  Evangelist  warns  his  readers  against 
supposing  a  contradiction,  by  saying  in  so  many 
words,  'John  was  not  at  this  time  cast  into  prison.' 

But  if  the  documents  admit  of  this  explanation, 
historical  probability  supports  it.  It  is  certainly  an 
impressive  picture  that  we  extract  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels, — that  single  sudden  call,  and  the  instanta- 
neous devotion  with  which  it  is  obeyed.  But  it  is  hard 
to  suppress  a  doubt  whether  this  would  have  happened 
in  real  life.  However  commanding  the  personality 
of  Jesus  might  be,  whatever  rumours  and  expecta- 
tions might  be  in  the  air,  it  still  is  not  probable  that 
four  independent  men  would  join  themselves  to  a 
stranger  merely  upon  his  word,  and  that  word  a  bare 
imperative,  unaccompanied  by  any  explanation.  In 
St.  John  all  this  is  softened  down,  and  appropriately 
'  mediated '  (vermittelt).  In  the  first  place  there  is  the 
testimony  of  the  Baptist ;  then  the  disciples  come  up 
by  ones  and  twos  ;  their  stay  is  purely  voluntary, 
and  the  cohesion  of  their  company  loose.  The  pre- 
vious acquaintance  thus  formed  naturally  leads  up  to, 
and  prepares  us  for  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptists. 

Other  collateral  reasons  point  the  same  way. 
^I.  Renan  has  very  rightly  called  attention  to  the 
probability  that  the  first  disciples  of  Jesus  would  be 
taken  from  those  who  had  been  originally  disciples 
of  the  Baptist.     The  later  relations  of  the  Christian 


St.  John  i. 
19-51- 


44 


THE    TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


[chap. 


church  to  the  Baptist,  the  respect  in  which  his 
memory  was  held,  and  the  frequency  with  which  his 
authority  was  quoted,  M.  Renan  thinks,  show  that  this 
was  the  case  ^.  The  inference  that  forces  itself  upon 
us,  that  the  Evangelist  himself  had  been  at  first  a  dis- 
ciple of  the  Baptist,  is  a  kind  of  'undesigned  coinci- 
dence.' And  it  helps  to  explain  the  intimate  know- 
ledge that  he  seems  to  possess  both  of  persons  and 
places — Peter,  Andrew,  Philip,  Nathanael,  Bethany, 
Cana,  Bethsaida,  as  well  as  of  even  minute  details  in 
regard  to  the  events  as  he  relates  them.  The  whole 
narrative,  from  ver.  35  to  51,  is  lifelike  and  circum- 
stantial. The  Evangelist  knows  the  order  in  which 
the  disciples  were  brought  to  Jesus ;  he  knows  the 
time  of  day  at  which  the  first  two  went  to  Him  ;  and 
he  knows  exactly  what  their  movements  were  after 
they  had  found  Him.  I  cannot  think  that  these  are 
merely  fictitious  details,  thrown  in  to  keep  up  an 
illusion.  They  are  not  conceived  the  least  in  the 
manner  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  Topography  is 
especially  a  testing  matter.  A  forger  would  be  sure 
to  betray  his  ignorance  sooner  or  later.  And  the 
Johannean  topography  as  a  whole  is  excellently 
authenticated  -. 

There  is  indeed  a  difficulty  in  regard  to  '  Bethany 
beyond  Jordan.'  Origen,  who  had  made  enquiries 
on  the  spot,  could  find  no  traces  of  it,  and  conse- 
quently substituted  the  reading  which  he  found  in 
some  MSS.,  'Bethabara.'  Some  of  the  earlier  critics, 
assuming  that  Bethany,  near  Jerusalem,  was  meant, 
quoted  this  as  an  argument  against  the  Gospel '.     But 

1  Cf.  Vie  de  Jesus,  Appendice,  p.  482.  ^  Cf.  Keim,  i.  133. 

^  e.g.  Bolten  and  Paulus.     Cf.  Meyer,  p.  104,  Liicke,  i  394. 


II.] 


THE    TESTIMO.VY  OF  JOl/X 


45 


the  assumption  was  the  more  gratuitous,  as  the  Evan- 
gelist has  defined  the  position  of  the  cis-Jordanian 
Bethany  with  much  precision,  '  Now  Bethany  was 
nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  furlongs  off,'  (xi.  i8). 
An  obscure  local  name  might  easily  be  lost  in  the 
course  of  two  centuries.  And  we  may  either  suppose 
that  this  was  the  case  ;  or  else  we  may  perhaps  accept 
Dr.  Caspari's  identification  of  '  Bethany  beyond  Jor- 
dan,' with  Tell-anihje,  on  the  upper  Jordan  ^.  In  any 
case,  the  distinction  between  two  places  having  the 
same  name,  is  a  mark  of  local  knowledge,  and  is 
unlike  fiction. 

Another  difficulty  has  arisen  from  the  readiness 
with  which  the  disciples  accept  and  act  upon  the 
testimony  of  the  Baptist^.  The  same  objection  ap- 
plies, as  we  have  seen,  with  still  more  force  to  the 
Synoptists.  But  clearly  this  first  adhesion  is  some- 
thing very  different  from  the  deliberate  confession 
that  St.  Peter  made  nearly  two  years  later.  No  doubt 
the  disciples  joined  our  Lord,  much  as  they  might 
have  joined  a  false  Messiah,  like  Judas  the  Gaulonite 


'  Cf.  Caspari,  pp.  77-81.  Dr. 
Caspar!  urges  in  favour  of  this 
identification  that  the  Arabs  fre- 
quently substitute  'Tell'  ('hill')  for 
'Beth'  ('house'),  and  also  that 
the  site  of  Tell-anihje  would  be 
within  one  day'sjourney  from  Cana. 
But  it  seems  difficult  to  overcome 
the  natural  presumption  against 
fixing  upon  a  point  so  far  to  the 
north — above  the  lake  of  Gennesa- 
ret.  Besides  the  statement  of  the 
Synoptists  (Matt.  iii.  i,  13),  the 
presence  of  a  deputation  from 
Jerusalem  seems  inconsistent  with 
this.  One  of  Dr.  Caspari's  argu- 
ments is  that  extensive  ruins  are 


still  found  at  Tell-anihje — a  fact 
which,  we  should  have  thought, 
told  rather  the  other  way.  In  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  as  well  as  the 
Synoptics,  John  describes  himself 
as  '  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness,' i.e.  not  in  a  populous  region. 
We  do  not  know  how  mttch  of  the 
course  of  the  Jordan  Origen  ex- 
amined. His  words  are  merely 
yfvofnevoi  iu  toTs  tuttois  (ttI  iaropiav 
Tuiv  Ixvwv  'lijaov  Kal  rwv  /xaOrjTCiiv 
avTov  Kal  tSjv  TTpo(pr]T!iiv ;  Betha- 
bara  itself  he  only  knows  from 
hearsay. 

^  Cf.  Keim,  i.  553,  The  Jesus  of 
History,  p.  86. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51. 


Significance 
of  the  first 
adhesions. 


46 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHiV. 


[chap. 


or  Theudas,  under  the  impression  that  He  was  about 
to  raise  a  revolt  against  the  Romans.  And  it  took 
a  long  education,  before  they  could  enter  into  the 
true  spirit  of  Him,  whom  they  thus  impulsively  fol- 
lowed. Roman,  as  well  as  Jewish,  literature  shows 
how  rife  Messianic  expectations  at  this  time  were  \ 
And  we  learn  from  Josephus  how  easily  Jews  and 
Galileans  rallied  round  the  cry.  In  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  Baptist  it  would  be  especially  potent, 
and  the  material  on  which  it  was  to  act  especially 
susceptible. 

Putting  the  accounts  of  the  several  adhesions  toge- 
ther, the  natural  fortuitous  connection  between  them, 
the  lifelike  character  of  the  narrative  in  detail,  the 
sort  of  background  that  it  seems  to  imply — a  group 
of  disciples  in  somewhat  loose  attendance  upon  the 
Baptist,  still  keeping  up  their  local  and  family  con- 
nections, and  not  so  committed  to  their  old  teacher 
as  to  refuse  to  follow  another ; — all  this  seems  to  give 
an  appearance  of  veracity  that  is  more  intelligible,  if 
we  suppose  it  to  be  a  reflection  of  facts,  than  as  an 
effort  of  conscious  imagination.  If  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  was  really  the  Apostle,  and  if  he  had  really 
been  a  disciple  of  John  in  his  youth,  then  we  can  well 
understand  how  the  events  of  those  few  days  would 
cling  tenaciously  to  his  memory,  because  to  him  they 
were  the  turning-point  of  his  life ;  but  that  the  writer 
of  a  philosophic  fiction  should  attain  to  the  same 
verisimilitude,  is  unlikely  in  itself,  and  out  of  all 
analogy  with  the  phenomena  of  the  other  fictitious 
literature  of  that  day. 

But  whether  we  think  that  the  Gospel  was  written 

^  Cf.  quotations  in  Keim,  i.  249,  compare  i.  592. 


II.J 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN. 


47 


by  the  Apostle  and  son  of  Zebedee  or  not,  thus 
much,  I  think,  we  may  set  down,  if  only  on  the 
strength  of  this  first  chapter — that  it  was  written  by 
a  Palestinian  Jew,  and  by  one  who  had  personal 
knowledge  of  all  the  Messianic  hopes  and  traditions 
that  were  current  among  the  actual  contemporaries 
of  our  Lord. 


St.  John  i. 
19-51 


7 

I 


CHAPTER    III. 


THE  FIRST    MIRACLE    AND    THE   FIRST  PASSOVER. 


St.  John  ii. 
l-ll. 

The  atti- 
tude of  the 
present  en- 
quiry to- 
wards mira- 
cles. 


The  docu- 
mentary 
evidence  for 
miracles  in 
the  Synop- 
tists  and  in 
St.  John. 


THE  question  as  to  the  reality  of  miracles  being 
a  balance  between  the  a  priori  improbability  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  historical  evidence  on  the 
other,  the  attitude  proper  to  an  enquiry  like  the 
present,  where  the  exact  value  of  the  historical  evi- 
dence is  the  point  at  issue,  will  be  to  assume  provi- 
sionally that  miracles  are  credible,  and  on  that  sup- 
position to  endeavour  to  ascertain  what  amount  of 
weight  results  to  the  evidence  for  them,  from  the 
general  character  of  the  narrative  in  the  course  of 
which  they  occur. 

The  Johannean  miracles  taken  by  themselves,  and 
prior  to  the  decision  of  the  question  as  to  their  nar- 
rator, are  less  well  attested  than  those  related  by  the 
Synoptists.  What  makes  the  case  for  the  latter  so 
strong  is,  that  they  carry  with  them  the  evidence  not 
of  a  single  document  but  of  several ;  and  that  all 
these  different  documents  bear  in  the  same  direction. 
It  is  not  as  if  one  related  miracles,  and  another  did 
not,  or  as  if  one  related  a  different  kind  from  the 
rest.  But  all  relate  miracles,  and  miracles  of  the 
same  sort.    And  this  coincidence  in  regard  to  miracles 


III.] 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE,   ETC. 


49 


is  checked  and  confirmed  by  a  number  of  other 
coincidences,  by  which  the  general  accuracy  of  the 
record  is  placed  upon  a  high  level.  The  fourth  Gospel, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  an  original  composition,  not  a 
compilation — and  it  was  all  made  at  one  cast.  It  is 
the  work  of  a  single  hand,  and  carries  with  it  therefore 
only  single  authority.  But  it  is  entitled  to  the  con- 
firmation of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  on  the  general 
question,  and  in  particular  instances  where  it  agrees 
with  them. 

The  miracle  recorded  in  Johnii.  i-ii  is  not  one 
of  these  ;  and  yet  we  may  notice  several  points  that 
are  in  general  keeping  with  the  Synoptics.  One  is 
the  bright  and  festal  character  of  the  whole  scene. 
M.  Renan  and  Dr.  Keim  agree  in  giving  to  this  first 
period  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry  the  epithet 
'  idyllic'  It  has  not  yet  caught  the  gloom  of  those 
darkening  clouds  of  opposition  and  desertion  that  are 
soon  to  come  over  it.  It  is  the  Good  Shepherd 
leading  His  flock  to  living  waters  and  seeing  that  they 
want  nothing.  It  is  the  Son  of  Man  piping  to  the 
generation  of  His  contemporaries,  eating  and  drinking 
with  them,  sharing  their  homely  joys,  exhorting  them 
to  take  no  thought  for  the  morrow,  pointing  to  the 
lilies  of  the  field  and  the  fowls  of  the  air  in  illustration 
of  His  lesson.  The  miracle  at  the  marriage-feast  in 
Cana  of  Galilee  falls  in  entirely  with  this. 

Then  there  is  something  in  that  remarkable  dia- 
logue between  our  Lord  and  His  mother,  which 
reminds  us  of  the  later  scene  with  the  Syro-Phoe- 
nician  woman.  The  address  'Woman,  what  have  I 
to  do  with  thee .-' '  is  indeed  less  harsh  than  it  sounds 
in  our  English  version  ;  as  we  see  by  comparing  it 


St.  John  ii. 
i-i  I. 


?;o 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
i-ii. 


Difficulties. 


with  '  Woman,  behold  thy  son.'  But  still  it  is  in- 
tended as  something  of  a  repulse.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  Mary  expected  a  miracle :  though  from 
seeing  her  Son  return  accompanied  by  disciples  she 
may  have  felt  that  a  turning-point  in  His  life  was 
come.  She  had  doubtless  been  accustomed  to  depend 
upon  Him  for  advice  in  the  common  accidents  of 
domestic  life ;  and  now,  in  the  present  emergency, 
caused  perhaps  in  part  by  the  addition  which  He  had 
brought  to  the  company,  to  Him  she  naturally  turns. 
It  appears  to  be  not  unusual  for  guests  to  make  con- 
tributions of  wine  on  such  occasions,  and  her  appeal 
may  have  had  reference  to  this  custom  ^.  But  the 
tide  of  miraculous  power  had  not  yet  begun  to  flow, 
though  it  was  not  long  to  be  delayed. 

The  difficulties  of  the  account,  apart  from  its  mira- 
culous nature,  are  three  : — i.  Why  did  our  Lord  repel 
His  mother's  suggestion  ?  2.  Why,  having  repelled  it 
with  the  answer,  '  My  time  is  not  yet  come,'  did  He 
within  a  few  moments  perform  a  miracle  by  which  it 
was  more  than  answered  .-*  3.  W^hy  did  the  Virgin,  in 
spite  of  her  repulse,  still  give  such  directions  to  the 
servants  as  showed  that  she  yet  did  not  give  up  her 
point .'' 

Some  little  light,  I  think,  will  be  thrown  upon  this 
by  looking  at  it  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the 
Syro-Phoenician  w^oman.  There  too  a  petition  is  first 
refused,  and  then  granted  ;  and  there  too  the  peti- 
tioner seems  to  divine  that  it  will  be'-. 

Still  there  remains  to  be  accounted  for  the  sudden 
apparent  change  in  our  Lord's  intention.  The  diffi- 
culty lies  in  its  suddeimess ;  and  that,  if  miracles  are 

1  Cf.  Ellicott,  Huh.  Led.,  p.  11?,  n.  ^  cf.  Matt.  xv.  31-28. 


III.] 


AND   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


51 


true,  must  be  beyond  our  ken.  It  is  bound  up  with 
tlie  whole  question  of  the  consciousness  and  nature  of 
miraculous  power,  and  is  hidden  in  a  depth  to  which 
psychology  cannot  penetrate. 

We  may  remark,  however,  upon  the  difficulties  of 
the  narrative  generally,  that  they  lie  in  a  certain 
paradoxical  character  which  is  not  inconsistent  with 
its  proceeding  from  an  eye-witness.  On  the  contrary, 
they  arc  not  at  all  of  a  kind  that  looks  like  invention. 
At  the  first  blush  the  chief  features  of  the  narrative 
seem  strikingly  human — a  human  impatience,  a  human 
infirmity  of  purpose.  The  last  place  where  we  should 
look  for  the  origin  of  these  would  be  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos. 

Again,  '  the  six  waterpots  of  stone,  after  the 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two 
or  three  firkins  {nictrctae)  apiece,'  is  all  very  circum- 
stantial— and  it  is  an  anachronism  to  look  for  the 
minute  invention  of  a  Defoe  at  this  period.  We 
may  notice  too,  the  natural  proverbial  turn  given  to 
the  speech  of  the  master  of  the  ceremonies ;  and 
generally  the  intimate  acquaintance  that  is  displayed 
with  Jewish  domestic  customs. 

The  miracle  may  have,  and  probably  has  a  typical 
or  symbolical  meaning^  ;  but  if  so,  this  must  not  be 
laid  to  the  account  of  the  Evangelist,  and  in  no  way 
invalidates  his  testimony.  The  description  is  through- 
out that  of  an  actual  occurrence.      The  details  on 


'  It  seems  best  to  refer  this,  with  the  change  is  operated  ;  so  that 
Ewald,  to  the  '  transmutative  power  there  can  hardly  be  any  alhision 
of  the  Messianic  Spirit,'  contact  — unless  it  is  a  remote  one,  a  kind 
with  or  faith  in  Christ.  Water  re-  of  association  of  ideas — to  the  con- 
presents  in  this  case  that  upon  trast  between  the  '  baptism  with 
which,  not  that  by  means  of  which,  water,'  and  '  with  the  Spirit.' 

E  2 


St.  John  ii. 
i-ii. 


Not  incon- 
sistent with 
authentic 
testimony. 


Significance 
of  the 
miracle. 


52 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
i-ii. 


Reflections 
of  the 
Evangelist. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


which  stress  is  laid  are  not  those  which  lend  them- 
selves to  allegory.  And  the  Evangelist  has  indeed 
stated  plainly  in  ver.  1 1,  the  only  object  of  the 
miracle  that  he  recognised.  '  This  beginning  of 
miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  mani- 
fested forth  His  glory ;  and  His  disciples  believed 
on  Him.' 

This  last  touch  is  significant.  ^  His  disciples  be- 
lieved on  Him,'  In  each  of  the  two  narratives  which 
follow,  the  comments  of  the  disciples  on  what  they 
witness  are  given.  '  And  His  disciples  remembered 
that  it  was  written,  The  zeal  of  thy  house  hath 
eaten  me  up.'  '  When  therefore  He  was  risen  from 
the  dead,  His  disciples  remembered,'  &c.  Why  is  this 
prominence  given  to  the  reflections  of  the  disciples? 
It  is  exceedingly  natural  if  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
himself  was  one  of  them.  But  it  would  be  strange 
in  a  forger  of  the  second  century,  wishing  to  exhibit 
the  glory  of  the  Logos.  That  the  disciples  believed 
would  be  little  better  than  a  truism.  If  they  had  not 
they  would  not  have  been  disciples.  It  would  surely 
have  been  more  to  the  point  to  tell  us  the  effect  upon 
the  guests,  and  a  forger  would  hardly  have  failed  to 
do  so.  But  all  is  explained  when  we  suppose  that 
a  disciple  is  speaking,  and  look  at  the  whole  chapter 
as  written  from  a  disciple  s  point  of  view. 

These  considerations  strongly  tend  to  make  us 
believe  that  the  miracle  in  connection  with  which 
they  occur  is  real ;  though  they  leave  some  of  the 
difficulties  of  that  miracle  unexhausted,  as  perhaps 
they  are  inexhaustible. 

But  now  follows  a  section  of  vdiich  we  can  only 
say,  in  the  words  of  M.  Renan,  '  that  it  constitutes  a 


nr.] 


A. YD    THE   FmST  PASSOVER. 


53 


decisive  triumph  for  our  Gospel ;' — and  that  not  only 
for  the  reason  assigned  by  M.  Rcnan,  but  also  for 
others.  The  section  begins, '  After  this  He  went  down 
to  Capernaum,  He,  and  His  mother,  and  His  brethren, 
and  His  disciples ;  and  they  continued  there  not 
many  days.'  What  could  be  more  simple  and  un- 
pretending history  ?  If  it  is  all  an  artificial  compo- 
sition, with  a  dogmatic  object,  why  should  the  author 
carry  his  readers  thus  to  Capernaum — for  nothing. 
The  apparent  aimlessness  of  this  statement  seems  to 
show  that  it  came  directly  from  a  fresh  and  vivid 
recollection,  and  not  from  any  floating  tradition.  It 
is  not  the  kind  of  fact  that  a  tradition  handed  from 
mouth  to  mouth  would  preserve.  But  from  another 
point  of  view  this  mention  of  Capernaum  is  important 
The  fourth  Gospel  has  not  yet  crossed  the  track  of 
the  Synoptists,  since  it  parted  from  them  at  the 
account  of  St.  John's  baptism.  Its  scene  has  been 
gradually  shifting  northwards  from  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  through  Cana  to  Capernaum.  We  have  no- 
ticed that  localities  seem  to  be  treated  with  great 
ease  and  precision.  Here  then  is  the  point  to  which 
we  are  brought  when  the  narrative  again  turns  south- 
wards. Capernaum  is  once  or  twice  mentioned  sub- 
sequently, but  nowhere  in  such  a  way  as  either  to 
exclude  or  directly  to  imply  the  fact  that  it  was  in 
any  peculiar  sense  the  head-quarters  of  the  northern 
mission.  Yet  from  the  Synoptists  we  should  cer- 
tainly infer  that  this  was  the  case.  Their  narrative 
leads  us  at  once  to  Capernaum,  and  in  all  the  earlier 
chapters  seems  to  centre  there.  There  is  a  certain 
house,  probably  Peter's,  to  which  our  Lord  and  His 
disciples  appear  to  have  had  free  access — so  that  it 


St.  John  ii. 
I  j-?5. 


Capernaum. 


54 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 


The  visits 
to  Jeru- 
salem in 
the  fourth 
Gospel. 


Not  ex- 
cluded by 
the  Synop- 
tists. 


Generally 
probable. 


Implied  in 
the  Synop- 
tic docu- 
ments. 


is  spoken  of  as  '  the  house '  simply.  This  all  tallies 
with  the  statement  in  St.  John  that  Capernaum  was 
the  last  point  reached  before  the  first  descent  into 
Judaea,  and  that  our  Lord  stayed  there  several  days. 
But  the  fourth  Evangelist  has  not  got  this  from  the 
Synoptists ;  for  he  mentions  it  in  quite  a  different 
context,  and  at  the  place  where  it  occurs  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  he  does  not  mention  it  at  all. 

And  now  the  Passover  was  at  hand,  'and  Jesus,' 
we  are  told,  'went  up  to  Jerusalem.'  This  is  the  first 
of  those  visits  to  Jerusalem  which  have  been  so  much 
debated.  It  would  seem  as  if  there  was  now  a  turn 
in  the  tide,  but  for  some  time  they  formed  one  of  the 
chief  arguments  of  those  who  reject  the  Gospel.  '  The 
scene  of  the  Synoptists,'  it  was  urged,  '  is  laid  entirely 
in  Galilee;  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel  largely  in  Judaea 
and  Jerusalem.  Therefore  the  two  are  in  opposition, 
and  the  Synoptic  tradition  must  be  followed  as  the 
most  reliable.'  It  would  perhaps  be  enough  to  answer 
by  pointing  to  two  things  : — first,  the  fragmentariness 
of  the  Synoptists.  Even  the  ground  document  is 
made  up  of  a  number  of  narratives  pieced  roughly 
together.  It  is  clearly  very  far  from  continuous  and 
very  far  from  exhaustive  ;  and  it  is  both  possible  and 
likely  that  it  was  formed  out  of  some  specially  Galilean 
tradition^.  Combining  this  with  the  a  priori  proba- 
bility that  a  Jew  would  attend  the  Jewish  feasts,  and 
that  the  Messiah  would  proclaim  Himself  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  I  think  the  objection  drawn  from  the 
change  of  scene  would  be  not  inadequately  an- 
swered. 

But  it  has  been  remarked  that  when  the  question 

*  Cf.  Holtzmann,  Synopt.  Evang.,  p.  102. 


III.] 


.4. YD   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


55 


comes  to  be  examined  into  more  closely,  it  is  found, 
that  while  the  Synoptists  nowhere  directly  mention 
these  visits  to  Jerusalem,  their  narrative  frequently 
seems  to  presuppose  them^.  Taking  first  the  ground 
document  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  original  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark,  we  see  from  this  that  one  at  least  of  the 
Apostles,  Judas  the  traitor,  was  a  native  of  Kerioth  in 
Judaea  (Mark  iii.  19).  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  or 
Ramathaim  was  a  disciple,  though  not  a  professed 
one  (Mark  xv.  43,  46).  The  account  of  the  borrow- 
ing of  the  ass  at  Bethphage  shows  that  our  Lord 
must  have  been  already  known  there  (Mark  xi.  2,  3). 
Similarly,  the  demand  for  the  room  at  Jerusalem  in 
which  to  eat  the  Passover  (Mark  xiv.  14).  The  supper 
given  at  Bethany  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  is 
clearly  given  not  by  strangers  but  by  friends.  And 
there  is  probability  in  the  supposition  that  this  epi- 
thet, '  the  leper,'  implies  that  Simon  had  been  pre- 
viously healed  of  leprosy.  Again,  quite  early  in  the 
narrative,  in  the  midst  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  we 
read  that  our  Lord  was  followed  by  a  great  multi- 
tude '  from  Galilee,  and  from  Judaea,  and  from  Jeru- 
salem' (Mark  iii.  7, 8).  He  is  spied  upon  and  harassed 
from  the  first  by  'scribes  which  came  down  from 
Jerusalem'  (Mark  iii.  22).  He  is  more  than  once 
engaged  in  controversy  with  them,  and  denounces 
them  face  to  face  (cf.  vii.  i). 

So  far  we  have  drawn  only  from  a  single  docu- 
ment. When  we  pass  to  the  second  main  document, 
the  '  collection  of  discourses,'  there  indeed  the  notes 
of  place   as  well   as  of  time   are  wanting,  and   the 

*  For  what  follows,  compare  especially  Weizsacker,  pp.  308-311,  and 
Wittichen,  pp.  40-43. 


St.  John  i 
12-25. 


56 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


various  portions  of  it  have  been  worked  in  by  our 
present  Evangelists  for  the  most  part  upon  other  than 
historical  principles.  But  there  is  one  passage  at 
least  (Luke  xvi.  34,  Matt.  xiii.  37),  '  O  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem  .  .  .  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together,'  &c.,  which  clearly  implies  previous 
warnings  and  invitations.  And  there  are  others  which 
point  at  least  to  familiarity  with  the  capital,  if  we  have 
not  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  they  were  actually 
spoken  there.  Such  are  the  allusion  to  the  '  altar '  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  description  of  the 
Pharisaic  practices  in  the  same  discourse.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  great  de- 
nunciation of  the  Pharisees  in  Matt,  xxiii,  though 
rightly  localised,  may  be  wrongly  dated.  There  are 
no  traces  of  it  in  this  connection  in  the  other  Gos- 
pels ;  and  it  seems  to  break  the  thread  of  the  escha- 
tological  discourses  which  formed  the  fitting  and 
appropriate  subject  of  the  preaching  of  these  last 
days.  The  period  of  open  controversy  with  the 
Pharisees  appears  to  have  been  earlier^ 

The  minor  documents,  like  the  collection  of  dis- 
courses, furnish  few  indications  of  place :  but  it  is 
clear  that  St.  Luke  has  had  one  or  more  that  deal 
especially  with  events  happening  in  Judaea.  Thus 
we  notice  that  even  more  frequently  than  St.  Mark 
he  calls  attention  to  the  presence  of  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  from  Jerusalem.  In  Luke  v.  17,  in  a  passage 
which  belongs  quite  to  the  beginning  of  the  Synoptic 
narrative,  we  are  told  that  at  the  healing  of  the  para- 

^  So  Weizsacker,  p.  311:  com-  that   many  of  the   Matthean  dis- 

pare  Wittichen,  p.  42.     The  data  courses  did  not  originally  belong 

are  too  uncertain  to  lay  any  stress  to  the  places  assigned  to  them, 
upon ;  though  it  is  sufficiently  clear 


III.] 


AND   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


57 


lytic  'there  were  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law 
sitting  by,  which  were  come  out  of  every  town  of 
Gahlee  and  Judaea  and  Jerusalem.'  It  is  possible 
however  that  this  is  merely  an  expansion  of  Mark 
ii.  6,  '  There  were  certain  of  the  scribes  sitting  by,' 
combined  perhaps  with  the  original  of  Matt.  iv.  25. 
Luke  iv.  44  ('  He  preached  in  the  synagogues  of 
Galilee  [Judaea] ')  contains,  if  we  are  to  accept  the 
reading  'lowSata?,  which  has  certainly  strong  MS. 
attestation,  a  direct  notice  of  a  Judaean  ministry. 
But  the  reading  'louSat'a?,  supposing  it  to  be  correct, 
is  very  remarkable  ;  and  I  cannot  say  that  I  am  as 
yet  prepared  with  a  definite  opinion  about  it. 

A  clearer  point  is  the  visit  of  our  Lord  to  Martha 
and  Mary,  which  has  no  definite  localisation,  but  if  it 
is  authentic,  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  sup- 
pose that  it  is  not,  must  belong  to  an  earlier  journey 
to  Jerusalem.  Again,  it  is  probable  that  some  of  the 
parables  peculiar  to  St.  Luke,  such  as  the  Good  Sama- 
ritan, and  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  were  spoken 
originally  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  scenes  to  which 
they  refer — the  road  to  Jericho  and  the  Temple. 
The  later  events  subsequent  to  the  Resurrection  are 
placed  by  St.  Luke  entirely  in  Judaea. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find 
that  the  head-quarters  of  the  disciples  and  the  centre 
of  the  Apostolic  mission  is  at  once  established  in 
Jerusalem,  which  would  be  highly  improbable  if  they 
had  arrived  there  for  the  first  time  only  some  few  days 
before  the  Crucifixion. 

These  are  a  number  of  points,  some  of  them  indeed 
based  upon  conjecture,  but  others  quite  clear  and 
indisputable, — which  taken  together  with  the  known 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


And  by  the 
narrative  of 
the  Acts. 


58 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


'  [chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


Admitted 
by  most 
critics. 


The 

cleansing 
of  the 
people. 


incompleteness  of  the  Synoptic  narrative,  with  the 
historical  probability  of  earlier  visits  to  Jerusalem, 
and  with  the  absence,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  of  any 
adequate  motive  which  could  lead  the  Evangelist  to 
challenge  upon  this  head  the  received  authorities, 
justify  us  in  saying  that  the  Synoptic  version  does 
not  exclude  the  Johannean,  but  is  rather  naturally 
supplemented  and  explained  by  it.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  it  is  not  as  if  the  fourth  Evangelist 
had  propounded  an  entirely  new  scheme  of  the  his- 
tory, or  as  if  his  disposition  of  the  narrative  made 
that  of  the  Synoptists  impossible.  He  mentions  four 
visits  to  Jerusalem  in  all,  of  which  one  occurs  before 
the  Synoptic  account  has  well  begun,  and  another,  the 
last,  is  recorded  also  by  them.  So  that  there  are  only 
two,  or  if  we  are  to  treat  the  raising  of  Lazarus  as 
a  separate  visit,  three,  for  which  places  have  to  be 
found  in  the  course  of  their  narrative.  And  in  spite 
of  these,  the  fourth  Evangelist  makes  no  attempt  to 
shift  the  general  centre  of  gravity.  He  still  devotes 
a  considerable  space  to  the  Galilean  ministry ;  he 
still  lays  the  scene  of  four  out  of  seven,  or  five  out 
of  eight  miracles  there ;  and  our  Lord  is  with  him 
still  the  'prophet  of  Galilee.'  In  this  respect  as  in 
others  his  Gospel  is  supplementary,  and  in  this  re- 
spect as  in  others  his  motive  and  procedure  are 
strictly  historical. 

So  then,  with  M.  Renan  and  with  most  impartial 
critics,  we  set  it  down  to  the  advantage  of  the  fourth 
Evangelist,  and  not  the  reverse,  that  he  mentions  this. 
early  visit  to  Jerusalem. 

But  it  is  not  here  that  the  difference  from  the  Sy- 
noptists ceases.     The  first  event  recorded  after  the 


III.] 


AND   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


59 


arrival  of  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  in  Jerusalem,  is 
one  that  appears  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  with 
them  in  a  different  context,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  immediately  after  the 
triumphal  entry  \  It  is  not  likely  that  two  events  so 
exactly  similar  in  every  particular  should  have  hap- 
pened. We  must  therefore  suppose  that  one  of  them 
is  misplaced.  And  remembering,  first,  that  the  Sy- 
noptic accounts,  though  apparently  three  are  virtually 
only  one,  all  of  them  being  evidently  based  upon  the 
same  document ;  remembering,  further,  that  the  chro- 
nology of  that  document  is  far  from  perfect ;  and 
remembering,  lastly,  that  other  events  have  been  re- 
ferred to  this  last  visit  which  probably  do  not  belong 
to  it, — we  shall,  I  think,  naturally  be  led  to  infer  that 
the  advantage  is  once  more  on  the  side  of  St.  John. 
The  objection  urged  against  this  is,  that  such  a  pro- 
nounced Messianic  act  is  not  likely  to  have  fallen  so 
early.  But  the  act  is  more  prophetic  than  Messianic. 
It  might  at  least  well  be  so  regarded  :  and  it  has  pre- 
cisely that  reformatory  character  which  marked  the 
outset  of  our  Lord's  preaching  and  ministry.  It 
stands  better  in  connection  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  than  with  the  eschatological  discourses  of  the 
Passion  week. 

But  on  a  priori  grounds,  though  we  may  reach  a 
higher  degree  of  probability,  we  shall  find  nothing 
decisive  one  wa}^  or  the  other.  Our  decision  will  be 
determined  by  the  conception  we  are  led  to  form  of 
the  comparative  value  of  the  Johannean  and  Synoptic 
testimony  generally.      If  St.  John   really  wrote   the 

^  Cf.  MaU.  xxi.  13,  13  ;  Mark  xi.  15-17 ;  Luke  xix.  45,  46. 


St.  John  ii 
12-25. 


6o 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 

As  nar- 
rated by 
the  Synop- 
tists. 


Gospel,  then,  as  proceeding  from  an  eye-witness,  it 
must  have  the  superiority. 

Now,  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  narrative  itself 
gives  us  information  on  this  very  point.  The  passage 
is  significant  not  only  as  bearing  upon  the  relation  of 
St.  John  to  the  Synoptists,  but  also  upon  the  relation 
of  the  Synoptists  to  one  another.  The  Synoptists,  all 
of  them,  describe  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  in  some- 
what general  terms.  St.  Luke  most.  'And  He  went 
into  the  Temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  them  that 
sold '  ['  therein,  and  them  that  bought,'  Tischendorf  and 
Tregelles  omit].  St.  Mark  has,  in  common  with 
St.  Luke,  the  phrase  J/pfaro  iKJSdWeti;  where  St.  Mat- 
thew has  the  simple  i^elSaXev.  Both  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Matthew  add  in  precisely  the  same  words,  'And 
overthrew  the  tables  of  the  money-changers,  and  the 
seats  of  them  that  sold  doves.'  But  St.  Mark  alone 
has  yet  another  detail.  'And  would  not  suffer  that 
any  man  should  carry  any  vessel  through  the  Tem- 
ple.' In  continental  churches  one  may  often  see 
market-baskets  placed  just  outside  the  doors,  while 
the  peasants  to  whom  they  belong  go  in  to  say  an 
Ave.  Something  of  this  sort  may  be  meant  here, 
except  that  the  baskets,  instead  of  being  left  outside 
the  Temple,  were  brought  into  it,  and  carried  through 
the  courts. 

From  the  peculiar  relations  of  these  three  accounts 
there  is  something  to  be  learnt.  First,  that  all  three 
must  have  had  the  same  source,  and  that  source 
must   have   been   in   writing' — otherwise   the  verbal 

^  The  argument  that  seems  to  must  have  been  in  writing,  is  less 
prove  almost  conclusively  that  the  the  mode  in  which  the  several  in- 
original  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels     cidents  are  narrated,  than  the  fact 


.II.] 


A. YD    THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


6i 


coincidences  could  hardly  have  been  so  exact.  The 
accounts  in  St.  Matthew  and  in  St.  Mark  are  almost 
word  for  word  identical.  But  of  these  it  is  clear  that 
St.  Mark  most  nearly  represents  the  original.  For  it 
is  much  easier  to  suppose  that  the  additional  detail 
in  St.  Mark  fell  out  through  the  loose  way  in  which 
documents  were  reproduced ',  than  that  it  was  put  in 
by  pure  invention.  And  further,  the  tJij^uto  eKjBaKXeLv 
is  confirmed  by  St.  Luke.  St.  Luke's  account  is  the 
farthest  removed  from  the  original  of  the  three ;  for 
he  omits  all  mention  of  the  money-changers  and  the 
sellers  of  doves. 

And  now  we  return  to  St.  John.  Let  us  suppose 
for  a  moment  that  he  enters  the  Temple  himself  as 
an  eye-witness  of  what  happens.  His  narrative  begins, 
'And  Jesus  found  in  the  Temple  those  that  sold  oxen 
and  sheep  and  doves,  and  the  changers  of  money 
sitting.'  The  Synoptists  had  said  nothing  about 
'  oxen  and  sheep,' — yet  oxen  and  sheep  and  doves 
would  be  exactly  the  objects  of  sale,  because  they 
were  used  in  sacrifice.  This  goes  to  show  that  the 
author  was  a  Jew,  and  knew  Jewish  customs.  But 
taken  with  the  context,  I  think  it  shows  more.  The 
epithet  KaOv^ix^vovi  is  reserved  specially  for  the  money- 


that  so  many  of  the  same  incidents 
are  selected  for  narration.  How  is 
it  that  out  of  twenty-eight  miracles 
related  by  the  Synoptists,  nineteen 
are  common  to  all  three  of  them, 
while  three  only  are  peculiar  to 
St.  Matthew,  two  to  St.  Mark,  and 
four  to  St.  Luke?  It  is  not  that 
these  were  the  only  miracles  per- 
formed, for  we  gather  that  there 
were  many  others  (cf  Matt.  iv.  24, 
viii.  16,  ix.  35,  xi.  20,  &c.),  or  that 
they  were   specially   distinguished 


from  the  rest — but  they  happened 
to  be  those  contained  in  the  docu- 
ment that  the  three  Evangelists 
took  as  their  groundwork.  The  same 
holds  good  for  the  incidents  of  the 
narrative  generally.  But  I  ho])e  to 
discuss  this  subject  more  fully  at 
some  future  time. 

^  We  have  specimens  of  this  in 
the  way  in  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  quoted  in  the  New,  and  by 
the  Apostolic  Fathers. 


St.  John  ii. 


By  St.  John. 


62 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


changers.  The  money-changers  would  be  sitting,  the 
sellers  of  the  doves  and  animals  for  sacrifice,  standing. 
This  is  exactly  as  they  would  appear  to  a  person 
entering  the  Temple.  '  And  when  He  had  made  a 
scourge  of  small  cords — perhaps  some  that  had  been 
used  to  tie  up  the  animals — He  drove  them  all  out  of 
the  Temple,  and  the  sheep  and  the  oxen  ;  and  poured 
out  the  changers'  money,  and  overthrew  the  tables  ; 
and  said  unto  them  that  sold  doves, '  Take  these  things 
hence ;  make  not  my  Father's  house  an  house  of  mer- 
chandise.' Observe  how  exactly  the  different  stages 
of  the  action  are  reproduced,  both  in  the  order  in 
which  they  occur,  and  the  way  in  which  the  action 
is  characterised.  First,  there  is  the  making  of  the 
scourge,  which  is  not  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  ; 
^nd  then,  the  expulsion  in  each  of  its  parts.  First, 
the  men  are  driven  out — they  see  what  is  coming, 
and  hasten  to  escape.  Then  the  dumb  animals,  who 
follow  next  as  capable  of  being  driven.  Not  till  then 
is  there  time  to  notice  the  tables  of  the  money- 
changers, which  are  overthrown  and  the  change 
poured  out  upon  the  ground — a  graphic  touch.  And 
at  the  same  moment  the  owners  of  the  cages  of  doves, 
which  could  be  neither  driven  out  nor  overthrown, 
are  recalled  and  bidden  to  take  away  their  property 
with  them.  How  lifelike  and  vivid  is  all  this !  What 
perfect  propriety  is  there  in  all  the  different  parts  of 
the  action.  How  the  rough,  dull,  general  statement 
of  the  Synoptists  is  particularised  and  defined,  broken 
up  into  its  details,  and  each  of  them  depicted  with 
minute  distinctness  and  accuracy.  On  one  point  only 
have  the  Synoptists  perhaps  an  advantage ;  that  is, 
in  the  sentence  with  which  the  expulsion  is  accom- 


III.] 


AND   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


63 


panicd.  It  is  possible  that  both  may  really  have 
been  spoken.  That  in  St.  John  seems  very  natural,  as 
addressed  especially  to  the  sellers  of  doves.  But  the 
quotation  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Synoptists 
is  so  exactly  what  we  should  expect,  that  it  must  not 
in  any  case  be  omitted.  We  shall  see  presently  that 
if  there  is  a  qualification  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
Evangelist's  recollections,  it  will  be  to  a  point  of 
words,  such  as  this,  that  it  will  apply.  But  we  can- 
not doubt  his  recollection  of  the  impression  made  by 
the  act  upon  himself  (ver.  17). 

It  was  only  natural  that  the  bystanders  seeing  such 
an  act  should  ask  the  Author  of  it,  by  what  authority 
it  was  done,  and  demand  a  sign  in  token  of  that 
authority.  The  demand  for  a  sign  is  in  accordance 
with  what  we  read  both  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and 
in  St.  Paul  ^  and  may  be  certainly  set  down  as  a 
genuine  trait  of  Jewish  character.  From  the  reply 
Mr.  Blunt  has  drawn  one  of  his  'undesigned  coin- 
cidences,' which  is  perhaps  of  less  doubtful  value 
than  some  of  the  others  in  connection  with  which  it 
occurs  ^  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  relate  as  part  of 
the  evidence  that  was  brought  against  our  Lord 
before  the  High  Priest,  this  very  saying.  They  put  it 
into  the  mouth  of  '  false  witnesses.'  We  are  not  told 
on  what  occasion  the  words  were  spoken,  or  that  they 
were  really  spoken  at  all.  The  clue  to  their  origin  is  not 
found  until  we  look  back  to  this  entirely  different 
part  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  It  is  all  but  impos- 
sible that  in  such  a  different  context  and  form,  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  should  have  derived  his 

'  Cf.  Matt.  xii.  38,  xvi.  i ;  i  Cor.  i.  22.  ('  The  Jews  require  a  sign.') 
*  Scriptural  Coincidences^  pp.  269,  270. 


St.  John  ii. 
J  2-25. 


The  sign 
of  the 
Temple 
destroyed. 


64 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii.  '  Statement  from  the  Synoptists.     Yet  the  Synoptists 

'^"^•'"      confirm  its  historical  truth.     But  if  this  passage  itself 

is  historical,  it  creates  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the 

rest  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  evenly  composed,  and  in 

which  it  presents  nothing  singular. 

We  are  not  concerned  for  our  present  purpose  with 
the  question  whether  the  interpretation  put  upon  the 
words  by  the  Evangelist,  as  a  prophecy  of  the  Resur- 
rection, is  the  right  one.  Already  in  the  Apostolic 
age  another  interpretation  seems  to  have  been  cur- 
rent, as  we  find  in  St.  Mark '  the  epithets  added 
Tov  VO.OV  Tovrov  Tov  \iipo~on]Tov — aWov  ayjipo-rroiriTov, 
making  the  saying  practically  equivalent  to  John  iv. 

21,  23. 

But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  notice  that  the  Evan- 
gelist gives  the  history  of  his  interpretation.  '  When 
therefore  He  was  risen  from  the  dead,  His  disciples 
remembered  that  He  had  said  this  unto  them  ;  and 
they  believed  the  Scripture,  and  the  word  which 
Jesus  had  said.'  Does  not  this  look  extremely  like  a 
page  from  his  own  autobiography  ?  Putting  altogether 
aside  the  common  ad  captandiim  argument  about  the 
immorality  of  forger>',  is  it  likely  that  any  other 
than  an  Apostle  should  have  written  these  words  ? 
Dr.  Keim  speaks  of  the  'tact'  which  the  Evangelist 
has  exercised  in  his  composition,  but  I  doubt  whether 
he  has  formed  any  exact  estimate  of  the  amount  and 
kind  of  tact  required,  and  of  its  relation  to  the  rest  of 
contemporar>-  literary  phenomena. 

There  is  one  more  point  in  the  chapter  which  must 
not  escape  our  observation — and  that  is,  the  chro- 
nology of  ver.  20.  '  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
'  Cf.  Mark  xiv.  58. 


The  '  forty 
and  six 


in.] 


AiVD   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


65 


Temple  in  building.'  The  building  of  the  Temple,  we 
are  told  byjosephus',  was  begun  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  Herod  the  Great,  i.e.  Nisan  i,  734 — Nisan  i, 
735  A.  u.  C.  Reckoning  forty-six  years  from  this  point, 
we  are  brought  to  the  year  78 1  or  782  A.  u.  C.  =  28  or  29 
A.  D.  Comparing  this  with  the  data  given  in  Luke  iii.  i, 
the  much-debated  question  arises,  whether  we  are  to 
reckon  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Caesar  from  his 
joint  reign  along  with  Augustus,  which  began  in 
765  A.  u.  C.=  12  A.  D. ;  or  from  his  sole  reign  after  the 
death  of  Augustus,  which  took  place  on  Aug.  19,  yGy 
=  14  A.  D.  This  would  give  us  27  A.  D.  or  29  A.  D.  for 
the  first  public  appearance  of  the  Baptist,  and  at  the 
earliest  28  A.  D.  or  30  A.  D.  for  the  passover  mentioned 
in  this  second  Chapter  of  St.  John.  We  can  define 
perhaps  somewhat  more  nearly  the  date  at  which  the 
work  of  rebuilding  the  Temple  commenced,  by  means 
of  the  festival  mentioned  by  Josephus  in  Ant.  xiv. 
16,  4,  as  the  month  Kisleu,  734 ;  forty-six  years  from 
that  gives  Kisleu  (December),  780.  So  that  this  pass- 
over  would  be  that  of  the  year  781  or  28  A.  D. ;  which 
agrees  exactly  with  the  earlier  of  the  two  dates  ex- 
tracted from  St.  Luke.  Whether  that  earlier  date 
can  be  accepted,  all  turns  upon  the  admissibility  of 
the  assumption  that  St.  Luke  has  reckoned  from  the 
joint,  and  not  from  the  sole,  sovereignty  of  Tiberius. 
Without  saying  that  this  is  indisputably  established, 
it  seems  to  me  to  have  been  brought  quite  within 
the  range  of  possibilities  by  the  recent  arguments 
of  Wieseler^.     It  is   significant   that  this  admirably 

'  Ant.  x\.  II.  I.  republican    and    imperial    institu- 

*    Cf.    Beitrdge,    pp.     177    foil,  tions  was  at  first  glossed  over  as 

Wieseler's  arguments  are: — (i.)  A  much  as  possible;  accordingly  the 

general  one ;   the  breach  between  emperors  reckoned  rather  the  num- 

F 


St.  John  ii 

I2-2S. 


Compared 
with  I,uke 
iii.  I. 


66 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 


Chrono- 
logical 
importance 
of  this 
date. 


conscientious  and  accurate  chronologist  has  seen  cause 
to  abandon  the  view  maintained  in  his  earlier  work, 
the  Chronological  Synopsis,  and  now  accepts  unre- 
servedly that  which  is  based  upon  the  earliest  date  of 
Tiberius'  accession.  And  to  the  evidence  and  reasons 
adduced  by  him,  I  think  we  must  allow  a  considerable 
degree  of  cogency.  We  should  thus  have  an  exact 
coincidence  between  the  two  Evangelists.  And  the 
mutual  support  that  they  would  afford  to  each  other 
would  be  of  the  very  strongest.  In  any  case,  the 
discrepancy  would  not  be  great ;  and,  allowing  for 
rough  calculations  on  both  sides,  would  almost  dis- 
appear. Dr.  Keim  objects  to  the  Johannean  state- 
ment that  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  Roman  pro- 
curators of  Judaea  took  part  in  the  building  of  the 
Temple,  which  would  thus  have  been  for  some  time 
intermitted  ^.  But  we  have  positive  evidence  that  the 
building  of  the  Temple  was  not  completed  until  the 
reign  of  Herod  Agrippa  II.  in  64  A.  D.  And  the  Greek 
does  not  at  all  compel  us  to  suppose  that  the  building 
had  been  continuous.  We  might  almost  paraphrase 
it,  '  Forty-six  years  is  it  since  the  building  of  this 
Temple  began,  [and  is  not  yet  finished.]'     It  is  notice- 


ber  of  times  that  they  had  held 
consular  and  tribunician  power 
than  the  years  of  their  reign  in  the 
strict  sense,  (ii.)  This  general  pro- 
position is  proved  from  coins,  &c. 
(iii.)  But  Dr. Wieseler  also  produces 
direct  evidence  from  coins  in  proof 
of  the  particular  proposition  that 
the  reign  of  Tiberius  was  thus 
reckoned ;  one,  a  coin  of  the 
Syrian  Antioch,  bears  the  head  of 
Tiberius  with  the  inscription 
Koicrap  .  'Sefiaaros  .  'SfBcurrov,  and 
the  date  12  aj).  ;  two  others,  re- 
spectively in  gold  and  silver,  have 


the  head  of  Tiberius  uncrowned, 
and  the  inscription  ti.  caesar  aug. 
TR.  POT.  XV.  on  one  side,  and  the 
head  of  Augustus  crowned  with 
laurel  and  inscribed  caesar  Au- 
gustus DIVl  F.  PATER  PATRIAE  On  the 

other.  If  these  coins  are  accurately 
described  (and  Dr.  Wieseler  is 
obliged  to  take  the  description  at 
second  hand)  there  would  seem  to 
be  little  doubt  that  the  Evangelist 
may  have  reckoned  from  the  joint 
rule  of  Tiberius.  Cf.  also  Herzog, 
xxi.  546,  7. 

^  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  615,  n.  2. 


III.] 


A. YD   THE  FIRST  PASSOVER. 


67 


able  that  the  tense  used  is  the  aor.  ioKobofji.i]9ri,  and  not 
the  pres.  oiKoSo/iarai. 

Dr.  Keim  seems  to  have  a  very  imperfect  idea  of 
the  logical  force  of  a  coincidence  so  evidently  unde- 
signed. Compared  with  it  the  data  on  which  his 
own  chronological  system  is  constructed  are  the  most 
broken  reeds.  Not  only  does  the  accuracy  of  this 
particular  date  go  far  to  determine  the  historical  cha- 
racter of  the  whole  Gospel,  but  even  if  it  had  been 
less  accurate  than  it  is,  it  would  have  left  a  strong 
presumption  that  the  Gospel  was  really  written  by 
St.  John.  By  what  conceivable  process  could  a  Greek 
in  the  second  century  have  come  to  hit  upon  this 
roundabout  expedient  for  giving  a  fictitious  date  to 
the  subject  of  his  invention  .-*  When  we  think  of  the 
lengthened  calculations,  the  consultation  of  documents, 
the  elaborate  adjustment  of  the  date  propounded  to 
the  other  events  of  the  Gospel  history,  that  would 
have  been  necessary  before  a  result  could  be  arrived 
at  that  should  at  all  approximately  suit  the  situation, 
it  becomes  quite  incredible  that  the  result  thus  ob- 
tained should  have  been  thrown  in  so  easily  and 
incidentally,  so  entirely  as  a  side-touch  on  which  there 
is  no  emphasis  whatever.  Besides  the  utter  improb- 
ability that  a  forger  at  that  date  would  have  taken 
the  trouble  to  work  out  such  a  problem,  it  is  equally 
improbable  that  he  should  make  no  more  parade  of 
his  labours  when  he  had  done.  The  only  possible 
hypothesis,  as  it  appears  to  me,  to  account  for  the 
way  in  which  this  verse  came  to  be  written,  is  to  sup- 
pose that  it  is  the  spontaneous  reproduction  of  words 
that  were  actually  spoken  by  a  person  who  actually 
heard  them. 

F  2 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 

Its  critical 
impor- 
tance. 


68 


THE  FIRST  MIRACLE,   ETC. 


St.  John  ii. 
12-25. 

Reflection 
of  the 
Evangelist. 


The  chapter  ends  with  a  comment  of  the  Evan- 
gehst,  which,  like  the  rest,  carries  us  back  to  the  time 
when  he  was  himself  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  looking  up 
with  reverence  to  his  Master,  and  pondering  silently- 
over  the  wisdom  by  which  His  conduct  seemed  to  be 
guided.  Here,  too,  we  have  a  reminiscence  of  that 
early  restraint  and  delayed  and  guarded  assumption 
of  the  full  Messianic  prerogative  of  which  we  also  find 
traces  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE    DISCOURSE   WITH   NICODEMUS. 


w 


E  have  hitherto  had  several  fragmentary  dis- 
courses or  dialogues,  but  we  now  meet  with 
the  first  of  those  long  connected  didactic  addresses 
which  are  so  peculiarly  characteristic  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  It  becomes  time,  therefore,  that  we  should 
make  some  remarks  on  the  question  of  the  Johannean 
discourses  in  general. 

Can  we  regard  these  discourses  as  strictly  authen- 
tic ?  Are  they  the  veritable  records  delivered  by  an 
Apostle  of  the  actual  sayings  of  our  Lord  Himself.^ 
Here  there  are  two  questions  which  ought  to  be  kept 
separate.  It  is  possible  that  the  discourses  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  may  not  represent  the  actual  words 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  and  yet  that  they  may  have 
been  committed  to  writing  by  an  Apostle,  This 
second  possibility  we  shall  consider  presently.  But 
it  is  necessary  first  to  determine  the  relation  in  which 
the  discourses  stand  to  their  original.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  style  and  subjects  of  the  Johannean 
discourses  have  from  the  first  supplied  one  of  the 
gravest  arguments  against  the  Gospel.  It  is  urged 
against    them    doubly ;    that    they    are    unlike    the 


vSt.  John  iii. 

The  dis- 
courses in 
the  fourth 
Gospel. 


70 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


Compared 
with  those 
in  tlie 
Synoptists. 


discourses  contained  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  \  which 
on  the  other  hand  correspond  exactly  to  the  description 
given  of  our  Lord's  discourses  by  tradition  ;  and  that, 
while  they  differ  from  the  discourses  in  the  Synoptists, 
they  present  a  close  and  suspicious  similarity,  both  in 
style  and  matter,  to  the  Epistle  which  goes  under  the 
name  of  St.  John  and  was  certainly  written  by  the 
author  of  the  Gospel. 

We  will  begin  by  granting  that  both  the  difference 
and  the  likeness  exist,  though  both  may  be  exagge- 
rated on  the  question  of  degree.  The  only  way  to 
determine  the  amount  of  difference  satisfactorily,  will 
be  to  deal  with  the  separate  discourses  in  detail,  as 
we  come  to  them.  But  in  the  meantime  we  may 
say,  that  the  difference  is  considerable.  Justin  Martyr 
describes  the  '  discourses  of  the  Lord '  as  '  short  and 
concise,  not  like  those  of  a  sophist-.'  This  is  very 
much  as  we  find  them  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
They  are  made  up  of  a  number  of  brief  aphoristic 
sayings,  each  compact  and  clear  cut  in  itself,  like  a 
well-set  and  polished  diamond.  When  they  assume 
longer  proportions,  it  is  either  by  accumulating  details 
of  description  or  illustration,  as  in  the  several  dis- 
courses contained  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
denunciation  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the  discourses  on 
the  '  last  things '  which  occur  in  the  week  before  the 
Passion.  A  still  more  common  mode  of  amplification 
is  that  by  casting  the  subject  into  the  form  of  a  short 
but  pointed  narrative,  or  parable.  The  subject-matter 
in  these  varied  kinds  of  discourse  is  also  varied.     It  is 


^  '  Si   Jesus    parlait    comme   le     comme  le  veut  Jean.'     Renan,  Vie 
veut   Matthieu,   il   n'a    pu    parler     Je  ye's2/s,  p.  Ixix.  (13th  edition.) 
'^  Cf.  Keim,  i.  128,  n.  4. 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


71 


frequentl)^  ethical,  sometimes  didactic  or  theological ; 
sometimes  it  concentrates  itself  upon  the  Person  of 
the  Speaker :  but  at  any  rate  it  cannot  be  said  that 
the  last  class  of  discourse  preponderates. 

In  the  fourth  Gospel  many  of  these  characteristics 
are  changed.  Strictly  speaking,  it  contains  no  parable. 
The  expanded  metaphors  of  the  tenth  and  fifteenth 
Chapters  must  rather  fall  under  the  more  general  name 
of  '  allegory.'  The  action  is  stationary  and  not  moving 
or  dramatised  ;  and  the  thing  figured  is  not  cut  loose 
from  the  figure  as  in  the  parable.  Then  the  dis- 
courses are  as  a  rule  longer,  and  not  progressive  or 
self-evolving  as  with  the  Synoptists,  but  frequently 
returning  to  the  same  point,  appearing  to  revolve 
round  a  fixed  centre ;  and  that  centre  is,  not  indeed 
exclusively,  but  very  largely,  the  Speaker  Himself, 
His  works,  His  Person,  faith  in  Him,  that  Divine 
Paraclete,  who  was  to  take  His  place  when  He  was 
gone. 

Assuming,  what  we  may  assume,  that  the  Synoptic 
discourses  accurately  represent  the  original,  is  it  cre- 
dible, or  rather  is  it  probable,  that  the  Johannean  dis- 
courses are  equally  authentic  ?  Can  two  such  difi'erent 
types  at  one  and  the  same  time  be  true  ?  To  a  certain 
extent  I  think  we  shall  say  they  can.  Professor 
Westcott^,  who  maintains  the  complete  authenticity 
of  the  Johannean  discourses,  argues  thus.  The  dif- 
ference in  style  answers  to  the  difference  of  locali- 
sation. It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  same  style 
of  discourse  would  be  used  to  the  simple,  hardy, 
'  warlike '  peasants  of  Galilee,  and  to  the  subtle  and 

'  Introduction,  pp.  263-265,  267.  Compare  the  elaborate  discussion 
of  Lulhardt,  pp.  167-19 1,  especially  190. 


St.  John  iii. 


How  far 
authentic. 


72 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


learned  doctors  of  the  law  at  Jerusalem,  We  find 
here  and  there  in  the  Synoptists  traces  of  the  same 
high  personal  claims  and  self-assertion.  Undoubt- 
edly there  were  other  sayings  like  them ;  and  sup- 
posing the  fourth  Evangelist  to  start  with  the  idea 
of  bringing  this  side  of  our  Lord's  teaching  into 
relief,  it  is  only  natural  that  he  should  select  that 
portion  of  it  which  bore  specially  upon  his  purpose. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  resemblance  to  the  First 
Epistle  is  accounted  for  by  inverting  the  supposed 
relationship.  It  is  urged  that  an  Apostle  who  stood 
in  such  close  and  intimate  relation  to  his  Master,  the 
disciple  'whom  Jesus  loved,'  who  leant  on  His  breast 
at  supper,  and  had  been  at  His  side  in  all  the  most 
important  scenes  of  His  ministry,  drinking  in  and 
meditating  for  a  whole  lifetime  upon  those  precious 
words,  would  consciously  or  unconsciously  model  his 
own  utterances  upon  them. 

Every  one  will  feel  that  there  is  truth  in  these 
observations,  and  that  they  will  carry  us  a  certain 
way.  But  will  they  carry  us  so  far  as  to  cover  the 
whole  of  the  phenomena  in  question  ?  An  absolutely 
impartial  judge  would,  I  think,  say  No.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  there  is  a  long  discourse  in  ch,  vi, 
which  is  addressed,  not  to  the  doctors  of  the  law  at 
Jerusalem,  but  to  a  mixed  audience  in  the  synagogue 
at  Capernaum,  Yet  this  does  not  differ  substantially 
from  the  others :  it  has  all  the  same  peculiarities  of 
structure  and  style  ;  it  is  rather  more  than  less  exalted 
and  mystical.  On  the  other  hand,  not  all  the  Synoptic 
discourses  are  laid  in  Galilee,  The  last  discourses 
especially,  and  we  have  seen  reason  to  think  some 
also  of  the  others,  were  delivered  in  Jerusalem.     Yet 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


73 


they  too  present  the  same  terse  aphoristic  parabolic 
character.  Just  as  the  Johannean  discourses  are  not 
addressed  exclusively  to  doctors  of  the  law,  so  also 
those  in  the  Synoptists  are  not  addressed  exclusively 
to  the  populace.  From  both  versions  we  should 
gather  that  the  audiences  were  for  the  most  part 
collected  casually,  and  that  they  were  composed  in 
the  main  of  the  same  mixture  of  classes.  Again,  it 
is  noticeable  that  this  peculiar  style  and  language  is 
not  only  attributed  to  Jesus,  but  also  to  the  Baptist. 
The  passage  iii.  31-36  bears  precisely  the  same  resem- 
blance to  the  Epistle  as  the  other  discourses  in  the 
Gospel.  Yet  no  one  would  maintain  that  the  Bap- 
tist also  conformed  to  the  same  type\ 

We  conclude  then  that,  if  the  Evangelist  is  also 
the  Apostle,  the  discourses  must  have  undergone  a 
sensible  modification  in  his  mind,  before  they  came 
to  be  written  down.  But  it  will  be  asked,  is  it  not 
simpler  and  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Evan- 
gelist and  the  Apostle  are  different  persons,  and  that 
the  discourses  are  ideal  compositions,  '  like  the 
speeches  in  Livy  or  Thucydides  ? '  The  results  of 
our  investigation,  so  far  as  we  have  at  present  gone, 
make  it  difficult  to  accept  this  alternative.     But  really 


'  Cf.  Scholten,  p.  229.  Dr. 
Scholten  has  dra\\Ti  up  tables  (])p. 
224-S)  of  a  number  of  expressions 
which  are  found  equally  in  the  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord,  reflections  of 
the  Evangelist,  and  in  the  Epistle. 
It  appears  from  Luthardt  (p.  173) 
that  one  critic,  Ebrard.  has  actually 
suggested  that  the  Evangelist  ac- 
quired his  style  from  the  Baptist  as 
well  as  from  our  Lord — as  if  an 
intercourse  of  a  few  days  (it  cannot 
at  most  have  been  more  than  three- 


fourths  of  a  year)  would  suffice  to 
form  a  style  for  life,  or  as  if  this 
would  account  for  the  further  re- 
semblance between  the  sayings  at- 
tributed to  the  Baptist,  and  those 
attributed  to  our  Lord.  (Cf  espe- 
cially vv.  34-36).  Such  are  the 
lengths  to  which  apologetics  can 
be  carried.  Luthardt,  who  sees  the 
absurdity  of  Ebrard's  reasoning, 
allows  that  the  subjectivity  of  the 
Evangelist  has  been  at  w-ork  '  in 
a  slight  degree '  (p.  1 74) . 


St.  John  iii. 


A  certain 
amount  of 
subjectivity 
need  not 
imply  un- 
Apostolic 
or  ideal 
compo- 
sition. 


14 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


all  depends  upon  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  modi- 
fications introduced — and  that,  as  we  said,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  detail.  There  is  a  certain  kind  of  modification 
which  would  be  quite  compatible  with  Apostolic 
origin  ;  that  is,  such  as  might  naturally  result  from 
a  strong  intellect  and  personality  operating  uncon- 
sciously upon  the  facts  stored  up  in  the  memory,  and 
gradually  giving  to  them  a  different  form,  though 
without  altering  their  essential  nature  and  substance. 
St.  Paul  had  compared  his  Gospel  with  that  taught  in 
the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem.  He  had  evidently 
satisfied  himself  that  it  was  substantially  the  same  : 
and  so  in  its  ground  lines  it  was.  But  the  difference 
was  probably  considerably  greater  than  St.  Paul  him- 
self imagined.  Without  supposing  fundamental  dif- 
ferences of  doctrine, — which  St.  Paul's  own  words  are 
sufficient  to  prove  did  not  exist ^, — still  would  there 
not  be  room  for  considerable  divergence  of  form .'' 
Are  we  to  suppose  that  all  that  keen  dialectic,  those 
allegorizing  interpretations,  that  peculiar  mysticism 
vanished  from  the  Apostle's  direct  exposition  of  the 
facts  of  Christianity  .-'  If  St.  Paul  had  written  a  Gospel, 
would  it  have  shown  less  divergence  from  the  Synop- 
tists  than  this  of  St.  John  .'*  That  it  would  have  di- 
verged from  them,  I  think  we  may  consider  almost 
certain,  unless  the  ordinary  laws  of  psychology  were 
suspended  in  a  way  that  we  have  no  valid  reason  to 
anticipate  they  would  be.  However,  the  extent  of 
St.  John's  divergence  has  still  to  be  determined. 

The  discourse  in  this  third  Chapter  is  said  to  have 
been  held  with  a  certain  Nicodemus,  a  member  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  who  came  to  Jesus  by  night.     Nicodemus 
1  Cf.  Gal.  ii.  2. 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


75 


is  an  entirely  new  personage,  who  is  not  mentioned 
by  the  Synoptists.  This,  however,  does  not  tell 
against,  but  rather  for,  the  historical  character  of 
the  part  attributed  to  him  :  because,  if  it  had  been 
fictitious  it  would  have  been  more  likely  to  be  left 
vague.  The  circumstances  under  which  he  is  de- 
scribed as  coming  to  our  Lord  are  exceedingly 
natural ;  and  it  shows  how  defective  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  are,  that  they  relate  nothing  like  them. 

We  gather  from  the  answer  that  he  receives  what 
was  Nicodemus'  opening  question, — the  introduction 
and  apology  for  which  only  is  recorded.  It  is  that 
which  occurs  so  frequently  in  the  Synoptists,  'What 
shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life,'  or  '  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven^  V 

On  two  occasions  when  this  question  was  put  to 
Him,  our  Lord  is  said  to  have  answered  by  appealing 
to  the  law^.  But  these  were  both  at  a  comparatively 
late  period  of  His  ministry;  and  the  questioners  were 
in  neither  case  persons  who  were  capable  of  entering 
fully  into  the  spirit  of  the  demands  made  upon  them. 
Therefore  the  answer  does  not  go  beyond  the  imme- 
diate condition  requisite :  this  was,  under  the  circum- 
stances, enough.  But  the  further  question  might  be 
asked — But  how  is  the  law  to  be  kept  satisfactorily } 
How  is  this  condition  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  be  complied  with  ?  The  answer  to  this  is 
given  in  another  place  where  our  Lord  is  speaking  to 
His  own  disciples,  and  is  sounding  with  them  the 
deep  things  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     '  Except  ye 

'  It  may  be  that  our  Lord  Ilim-  cline    to   the    supposition    in    the 

self  anticipates  the  question,  which  text. 

is  withheld    through  modesty  (of.  ^  Cf.  Matt.  xi.\.  16-22;  Luke  x. 

Meyer,  Comm.,  p.  153);  but  I  in-  25-28. 


St.  John  iii. 


76 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


be  converted,'  He  says,  'and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren, ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ' 
(Matt,  xviii.  3).  It  is  noticeable  that  this  doctrine  of 
conversion  or  repentance  is  that  with  which  His 
public  ministry  was  first  opened  — '  Repent,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.' 

So  far  the  Synoptic  Gospels  take  us.  Now  let  us 
return  to  St.  John.  There  our  Lord  is  made  to 
reply,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  from  above,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.'  And  in  further  explanation 
He  adds,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
Here  three  conditions  are  described  as  necessary. 
First,  a  birth — which,  as  distinguished  from  the  phy- 
sical birth,  might  be  called  a  '  new '  or  '  second  birth  ;' 
secondly,  baptism  ;  thirdly,  the  Spirit.  But  all  these 
three  are  really  different  sides  or  elements  in  the 
same  act.  Perhaps  in  describing  this  we  should  natu- 
rally invert  the  order.  In  order  of  time,  that  which 
comes  first  is  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  by  virtue  of  which 
the  need  of  repentance  and  reformation  is  felt,  and  the 
power  to  carry  it  through  communicated.  Then 
comes  the  emphatic  symbolical  act  of  baptism,  in 
which  the  convert  signifies  by  the  washing  of  his 
body  that  he  at  the  same  time  puts  away  once  and 
for  ever  the  blots  and  stains  upon  his  soul.  In  this 
the  Spirit  still  sustains  him,  and  in  reward  for  his 
resolution  is  given  to  him  in  fuller  measure.  And 
so  the  Spirit  of  God  co-operating  with  the  will  of 
man,  that  new  birth  is  completed — the  man  becomes 
a  new  being,  a  new  creature ;  '  old  things  are  passed 
away  ;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new.' 

This  is  the  conception  that  we  find  embodied  in 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


77 


our  Lord's  answer  to  Nicodemus  as  recorded  in 
St.  John.  What  does  it  contain  in  addition  to  the 
Synoptists  ?  Taking  the  first  term,  '  the  new  birth,' 
there  is  really  very  little  in  excess  of  the  Synop- 
tists. The  metaphor  from  '  childhood '  is  only  pressed 
a  degree  further.  The  second  term,  baptism,  is  not 
mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  until  quite  the  end  of 
their  narrative.  Neither  is  the  third,  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  in  connection  with  it. 

But  this  is  one  of  those  points  on  which  the  in- 
completeness of  the  Synoptic  record  comes  out.  If 
we  are  to  believe  the  fourth  Evangelist,  the  rite  of 
baptism  w^as  already  practised  during  the  lifetime  of 
Jesus  Himself,  and  at  the  very  beginning  of  His 
ministry.  If  so,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
was  associated  with  the  preaching  of  Repentance, 
just  as  the  two  were  associated  by  John  the  Baptist. 
At  any  rate  the  Johannean  conception  in  its  triple 
form  is  Apostolic,  and  belongs  to  the  earliest  cycle 
of  Apostolic  teaching.  Among  the  speeches  attri- 
buted to  St.  Peter  in  the  Acts  the  conclusion  of  the 
first  is  this — 'Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  \' 
The  document  in  which  this  speech  is  contained 
bears  the  marks  of  early  composition  ;  and  here  we 
find  fully  developed  every  element  of  the  Johannean 
conception,  with  the  one  exception  of  the  pre-  as  well 


'  Acts  ii.  38.  Sufficient  reasons 
for  assigning  to  this  document  an 
early  date,  seem  to  be  (i)  the 
Christology,  cf.  ii.  22,  32,  36;  iii. 
13-15,  &c. ;  (2) the  appearance  of 
the  politico-theocratic  idea  in  i.  6. 


But  the  composition  of  the  Acts  is 
an  important  subject  of  enquiry,  on 
which  much  still  remains  to  be 
done.  Another  starting-point 
ought,  I  think,  to  be  the  singular 
vividness  of  the  narrative  in  ch.  xii. 


St.  John  iii. 


78 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


as  post-baptismal  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — the  'birth 
frovi  above!  According  to  St.  John  it  is  the  divine 
grace  and  inspiration  which  lead  the  convert  to  be 
baptized,  as  well  as  dwell  in  him  after  baptism. 

In  the  Epistle  of  St.  Peter^  this  element  also  appears. 
'  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  which  hath  begotten  us  again  to  a  lively- 
hope,'  &c.  (i  Pet.  i.  3).  'Being  born  again,  not  of 
corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible'  (i  Pet.  i.  23). 
'  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  baptism  doth  also 
now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ'  (i  Pet.  iii. 
21).  In  St.  Paul  the  triple  combination  is  well 
known.  The  difference  between  the  Pauline  and 
Petrine  conceptions  turns  chiefly  upon  the  relation 
of  baptism  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
into  which  it  would  be  beside  our  purpose  to  enter. 

The  result  that  we  obtain  is  :— first,  that  there  is 
a  chronological  coincidence  as  to  the  place  assigned 
especially  to  the  preaching  of  repentance  in  St.  John 
and  in  the  Synoptists.  In  both  it  marks  the  outset 
of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  is  indeed  the  point  at 
which  it  attaches  itself  to  the  preaching  of  the  Bap- 
tist. Secondly,  if  the  full  conception  drawn  out  in 
these  verses  belongs  in  part  to  the  Evangelist,  it 
belongs  to  him  not  alone,  but  in  concert  with  the 

^  The  genuineness  of  this  Epistle 


may,  I  think,  safely  be  assumed. 
It  is  doubted  by  De  Wette  and 
denied  by  Schwegler,  but  has  been 
consistently  maintained  by  the  best 
critics  of  the  more  moderate  school, 
Ritschl,  Bleek,  Weiss,  &c.  The 
only  real  argument  against  it,  is 
the  relation  of  the  theology  of  the 


Epistle  to  that  of  St.  Paul ;  but  this, 
— however  it  is  to  be  accounted  for, 
and  several  ways  are  open, — is  in- 
sufficient to  outweigh  the  many 
reasons  that  confiim  the  traditional 
view.  Cf.  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  H.  S., 
§§  147-150;  Bleek,  Einl.,  pp.  568- 
572  ;  Ritschl,  Entsiehung  d.  a.  K., 
i  16  foil. 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


79 


earliest  leader  of  the  Christian  community,  and  that 
as  well  in  the  earliest  as  in  the  later  portion  of  his 
teaching.  This  would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the 
two  Apostles  (accepting  for  a  moment  the  hypo- 
thesis which  seems  to  be  suggested,  that  the  author 
of  the  Gospel  was  the  Apostle)  did  not  dcvelope 
their  ideas  independently,  but  that  they  had  some 
common  ground  or  foundation  in  the  actual  teaching 
of  Jesus  more  than  has  been  handed  down  to  us  by 
the  Synoptists. 

Though  we  should  grant  then  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  the  form  of  this  discourse  with  Nicodemus 
which  is  not  perfectly  original,  we  yet  shall  hesitate 
to  allow  that  there  has  been  any  serious  transformation 
of  the  matter. 

These  remarks  are  intended  to  cover  especially  the 
verses  from  1-5.  From  verse  6  onwards,  the  nature 
and  effects  of  the  Spirit's  operation  is  enlarged  upon. 
We  should  be  tempted  at  first  sight  to  attribute  this 
entirely  to  the  Evangelist.  Little  is  said  about  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  And 
so  far  as  it  is  mentioned  there  it  is  rather  as  a  special 
gift  conferred  upon  the  Apostles,  with  a  view  to  their 
ministry  after  their  Master  was  taken  away  from 
them.  The  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  determining  the 
hearts  of  men  to  conversion,  or  as  an  agency  sus- 
taining the  ordinary  Christian  life,  does  not  seem  to 
be  brought  out  directly  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels^. 
And  yet  indications  at  least  of  something  parallel 
are  to  be  found.  When  it  is  pointed  out  that  riches 
are  an  almost  insuperable   hindrance  to  conversion, 

'  Cf.  especially  Matt.  x.  20.  Luke  xi.  13  appears  to  be  a  later  version 
of  Matt.  vii.  11. 


St.  John  iii. 


vv.  6-21. 


8o 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


the  qualification  is  added,  that  the  disposition  which 
makes  the  heart  accessible  to  transforming  influences, 
is  not  merely  dependent  upon  circumstances  or  upon 
the  free  will  of  man — '  And  with  God  all  things  are 
possible'  (Matt.  xix.  26).  Then  in  the  expression 
'  children  of  the  kingdom '  (Matt.  xiii.  38)  there  is 
contained  the  idea  of  a  heavenly  parentage,  a  divine 
element  in  the  work  of  regeneration.  Even  for  the 
opposition  between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit,  there  is 
something  of  a  parallel  in  '  the  Spirit  indeed  is  willing, 
but  the  flesh  is  weak'  (Matt.  xxvi.  41). 

It  is  true  that  we  have  here  only  the  hints  or  germs 
of  which  the  Johannean  conception  is  the  full  deve- 
lopment :  but  it  is  a  development  logically  in  a  direct 
line  ;  and  when  we  come  to  think  (i)  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  Synoptic  Gospels  were  composed  ;  (2)  of 
the  comparatively  small  proportion  which  the  didactic 
elements  in  them  cannot  but  have  borne  to  the  sum 
of  these  elements  in  our  Lord's  teaching ;  (3)  and 
lastly,  of  the  popular  character  of  the  great  majority 
of  the  discourses  and  sayings  contained  in  them, — we 
can  hardly  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  considerable 
room  is  left  for  a  nearer  approximation  to  the  doc- 
trine of  St.  John  than  the  written  records  would  lead 
us  to  suppose.  Again,  our  conclusion  is  confirmed  by 
a  comparison  of  the  Johannean  theology  with  that  of 
St.  Paul.  The  parallels  which  are  scanty  in  the  Sy- 
noptic Gospels  become  abundant  in  the  Pauline  Epi- 
stles. The  antithesis  of  flesh  and  Spirit,  the  divine 
predestination  and  election,  and  the  permanent  in- 
dwelling and  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as  the 
concentration  of  these  ideas  round  the  public  confes- 
sion and  inner  change  denoted  by  baptism — all  these 


IV. 


WITH  XI  COD  EMUS. 


8i 


arc   standing   themes  with   St 


Paul.  And  yet  the 
dififcrence  in  the  mode  of  presentation  is  so  marked, 
and  the  independence  of  the  Johanncan  theology  as  a 
wliole  is  so  striking,  as  to  make  it  altogether  more 
likely  that  the  elements  which  are  apparently  common 
are  rather  a  bifurcation  from  a  common  stock  than  in 
any  way  directly  descended  the  one  from  the  other. 
The  interval  which  separates  the  Gospels  from  the 
Apostolic  teaching  becomes  at  once  easier  to  fill, 
when  we  take  into  account  the  materials  supplied 
by  the  fourth  Gospel. 

There  is  something  very  remarkable  in  the  way  in 
which  the  Evangelist  seems  to  pass  without  announce- 
ment and  almost  unconsciously  from  reflections  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  dramatis  pcrsonae  to  his  own. 
Here  in  ver.  ii  he  is  already  wavering  between  the 
original  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  missionary 
experiences  of  the  Apostles.  And  he  very  soon  glides 
into  the  exposition  of  his  own  theoretical  view  of  the 
scheme  of  salvation.  '  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
He  gave  His  only-begotten  Son  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  Him  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting 
life  :'  on  which  theorem  the  verses  to  the  end  of  the 
2 1st  are  a  comment. 

A  still  clearer  and  more  decisive  instance  of  a 
similar  transition  is  supplied  by  the  end  of  the 
chapter.  The  objective  element  in  the  discourse 
attributed  to  the  Baptist  gradually  diminishes  till 
it  reaches  the  vanishing  point  about  ver.  31.  There 
is  probably  a  kernel  of  objective  fact  in  that  beautiful 
figure  of  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom  who  hears  the 
bridegroom's  voice,  and  when  he  hears  it  is  glad, 
though    his    own    functions    should    cease.      But    the 

G 


St.  John    ii. 


vv.  27-36. 


82 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  iii. 


beauty,  the  tenderness,  and  the  pathos  with  which  it 
is  clothed,  belong  less  to  the  stern  prophet  of  the 
wilderness,  than  to  the  'Apostle  of  Love.'  The  re- 
mainder of  the  chapter  we  may  say  with  confidence 
is  purely  Johannean.  There  is  indeed  nothing  to 
indicate  a  change  of  speaker  in  the  text.  Still,  I 
can  hardly  imagine  a  critic  seriously  maintaining  that 
the  words  were  spoken,  as  they  stand,  by  the  Baptist  ^ 
We  notice  as  one  mark  of  the  perfect  naivete 
with  which  the  Evangelist  permits  himself  this  pro- 
cedure, that  the  historical  notices  usually  occur  before 
and  not  after  these  Johannean  climaxes  -.  The  intro- 
duction is  the  purest  history ;  and  to  this  the  first  few 
sentences  of  the  discourse  keep  more  or  less  closely. 
It  is  only  gradually  that  it,  as  it  were,  drifts  from  its 
moorings  and  is  carried  out  into  the  open  sea  of 
Johannean  theology.  But  the  historical  substantia- 
tion does  not  occur  at  the  end  as  it  does  at  the 
beginning.  If  the  Evangelist  gives  the  reins  some- 
what to  his  imagination,  he  nowhere  endeavours 
to  claim  for  it  more  than  a  subjective  authority. 
How  different  from  the  proceeding  of  a  forger ! 
How  natural  if  the  writer  is  really  St.  John  — 
one  who  felt  that  his  own  words  were  clothed 
with    authority,    and    who    was    conscious    that    he 


*  'Yet  on  a  careful  reading  of 
these  passages  (iii.  10-2  1  and  27- 
.^6")  it  seems  impossible  not  to  feel 
that  the  Evangelist  is  in  part  com- 
menting on  and  explaining  the  tes- 
timony which  he  records.  The 
comments  seem  to  begin  respect- 
ively at  verses  16  and  31.'  West- 
cott,  Introd.  p.  272  n.  I  would 
only  ask  on  what  principle  it  is 
possible  to  draw  a   sharp  line  at 


these  two  passages,  iii.  16-21  and 
3i-.^6,  and  still  to  maintain  the 
rigid  authenticity  of  the  rest  of  the 
discourses  in  the  Gospel  ?  When 
once  the  subjective  freedom  of  the 
Evangelist  is  admitted,  there  seems 
to  be  no  stopping  except  at  the 
point  which  is  fixed  by  critical 
analysis  and  comparison. 

^  Cf.  i.  15,  iii.  I  foil.,  25  foil.,  v. 
17  foil.,  xii.  44  foil. 


IV.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


83 


liad  himself  so  put  on  '  the  mind  of  Christ,'  that 
he  did  not  care  to  distinguish,  and  probably  could 
not  distinguish  if  he  had  tried,  the  constituent  ele- 
ments in  the  thoughts  and  memories  that  thronged 
in  upon  him.  Even  now,  with  all  our  modern  notions 
of  literary  morality,  and  with  all  our  western  precision 
of  thought,  such  phenomena  are  not  infrequent  \ 
How  much  less  then  should  we  be  surprised  to  meet 
with  them  not  only  under  circumstances  so  peculiar, 
but  in  an  age  when  it  was  almost  as  common  a 
thing  for  an  author  to  write  in  another  person's  name 
as  in  his  own. 

We  will  now  glance  rapidly  over  the  chapter,  pick- 
ing up  such  marks  as  present  themselves  of  its  Johan- 
nean  authorship  and  historical  character. 

Mr.  Blunt-  has  drawn  an  'undesigned  coincidence' 
from  the  allusion  to  the  Ascension  in  ver.  1 3.  '  No 
man  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,'  &c.  The  Ascen- 
sion is  nowhere  directly  related  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
Indeed  the  narrative  terminates  before  it  is  reached. 
But  there  are  several  incidental  allusions  to  it  in  con- 
nection with  previous  events.  It  is  prophesied,  though 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  is  not  recorded. 

The  observation  is  doubtless  correct,  but  it  does 
not  prove  very  much.  Whether  the  Ascension  ac- 
tually took  place  or  not,  it  was  certainly  believed  to 
have  taken  place  at  the  very  earliest  date.  The 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  documents  which  com- 
pose the  early  part  of  the  Acts,  afford  proof  that  the 
belief  was  from  the  first  currently  received.  So  that 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  whoever  he  might 

'  E.  g.  notoriously  in  the  case  of  S.  T.  Coleridge. 
*  Scriptural  Coincidences,  p.  308. 
G  2 


St.  John  iii. 


Marks  of 
genu.neness 
and  authen- 
ticity. 

The 

Ascension. 


84 


THE  DISCOURSE 


[chap. 


St.  John  ii 


The  rite  of 
baptism. 


have  been,  would  necessarily  presuppose  it  as  part  of 
that  common  groundwork  of  tradition  which  was  the 
property  of  every  Christian.  It  was  a  fact  so  noto- 
rious, that  we  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  it  al- 
luded to  incidentally  even  in  a  writing  which  was  not 
genuine.  It  is  rather  a  proof  of  the  subjective 
character  of  this  part  of  the  discourse,  that  the  lan- 
guage should  be  so  evidently  coloured  by  an  event 
which  had  not  yet  happened,  and  which  we  gather 
from  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  xvi.  21)  was  not  even  pre- 
dicted until  a  considerably  later  period. 

When  we  look  into  the  allusion  a  little  more  nearly, 
we  perceive  that  it  is  an  Apostolic  gloss  upon  the  pre- 
ceding verse, — '  How  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you 
of  heavenly  things  ?'  He  only  could  tell  of  the  things 
of  heaven,  who  had  proved  by  His  Ascension  that  He 
came  down  from  heaven. 

A  sounder  instance  of  'undesigned  coincidence' 
might  be  drawn  from  ver.  21.  'After  these  things 
came  Jesus  and  His  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judaea  ; 
and  there  He  tarried  with  them  and  baptized.'  It  is 
afterwards  explained  that  our  Lord  did  not  Himself 
baptize,  but  His  disciples.  Now  it  is  in  the  first  place 
antecedently  probable,  that  as  our  Lord  took  up  the 
preaching  of  the  Baptist  precisely  where  he  left  it, 
'  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ;' — 
and  as  further  baptism  was  essentially  a  Messianic 
rite,  associated  with  these  ideas  of  repentance  and 
admission  to  the  kingdom,  the  rite  would  be  con- 
tinued along  with  the  invitation  and  announcement 
to  which  it  was  conjoined.  That  it  was  so  we  are 
led  to  infer  from  the  fact  that  it  is  included  in  the 
last    instructions   to   the   disciples,  and    also   that   it 


v.] 


WITH  NICODEMUS. 


formed  part  of  their  practice  from  the  very  beginning 
of  their  independent  ministry.  Yet  this  is  the  one 
passage  in  which  it  is  positively  stated  that  our  Lord 
authorised  baptism  during  His  Hfetime. 

The  other  notices  in  the  midst  of  which  this  occurs 
are  evidently  of  high  historical  value.  'John  also  was 
baptizing  in  Aenon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was 
much  water  there  :  and  they  came  and  were  baptized. 
For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.  Then  there 
arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and 
the  Jews  about  purifying.'  This  is  minute  and  cir- 
cumstantial on  a  number  of  points  of  absolutely  no 
dogmatic  importance,  and  that  would  only  have  in- 
terest for  one  who  had  been  himself  an  actor  in  the 
scenes  he  describes. 

Several  identifications  have  been  proposed  for 
Aenon  and  Salim  ^ — quite  sufficient  to  show  that 
these  places  had  a  real  existence.  Aenon  represents 
the  general  name  for  '  Spring.' 

We  have  before  alluded  to  the  correction  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  contained  in  ver.  24.  '  For  John 
was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.'  The  Synoptic  account 
of  the  public  appearance  of  Jesus  does  not  begin 
until  after  the  imprisonment  of  John.  Therefore  the 
whole  of  these  first  three  and  indeed  part  of  the  fourth 
Chapter  of  St.  John  must  be  inserted  before  it.     This 


'  Such  are  (i)  Tell  Ridghah, 
Sheikh  SulimX  Ellicott,  Van  de 
^'elde,  G.  in  S.  D.,  following  Je- 
rome and  Eusebius  Pressel.  in 
Herzot;,  adheres  to  the  same  au- 
thorities. (2)  =  'Shilhim  and  Ain,' 
Joshua  XV.  .^2,  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judaea,  Ewald,  Wieseler  and  Alf. 
(5")  Salim,  a  village  near  Nablus 
(Sichem),    Robinson.      (4)    Wady 


Seleim,  five  miles  N.E.  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  Dr.  Barclay,  quoted  in  S.  D. 
Of  these  on  the  evidence  I  should 
be  inclined  decidedly  to  prefer  (i). 
It  is  hardly  necessary  for  Aenon 
and  .Salim  to  be  in  Judaea,  as 
Meyer  seems  to  think,  for  though 
at  no  great  distance  from  the  place 
where  our  Lord  was,  they  were 
also  not  very  near  it  (cf.  ver.  25). 


St.  John  ill. 


'  Aenon 
near  to 
Salim.' 


Redistribu- 
tion of  the 
narrative. 


86 


THE  DISCOURSE    WITH  NICODEMUS. 


St.  John  iii. 


is  to  me  much  more  the  work  of  an  independent  his- 
torian handhng  his  facts  with  the  mastery  of  know- 
ledge, than  of  a  forger  separated  by  a  considerable 
interval  both  of  time  and  space  from  the  events,  and 
consciously  manipulating  the  tradition  so  as  to  adapt 
it  to  a  novel  system  of  theology.  All  the  ingenuity 
of  the  Tiibingen  school  has  failed  to  establish  any 
adequate  dogmatic  motive  for  this  remarkable  redis- 
tribution of  the  history.  Every  dogmatic  purpose 
could  have  been  equally  served  by  keeping  to  the 
existing  lines.  But  there  are  certain  portions  of  this 
added  material  (ii.  12,  iii.  22,  23)  that  it  is  impossible 
to  regard  as  embodiments  of  dogma.  It  is  equally 
impossible  to  regard  them  as  fragments  detached  from 
the  mass  of  tradition.  The  only  conclusion  then 
remains,  that  they  are  facts  lodged  in  the  memory  of 
a  living  witness  of  the  events  described.  And  the 
same  hypothesis  is  found  to  give  a  simple  and  com- 
plete account  of  a  historical  procedure,  which  upon 
any  other  must  be  to  all  appearance  inexplicable. 


CHAPTER   V. 


SAMARIA   AND   GALILEE. 


FEW  portions  of  the  Johanncan  narrative  have 
been  more  called  in  question  than  the  Samaritan 
episode,  which  fills  a  great  portion  of  the  fourth  Chap- 
ter. I  will  notice  briefly  the  chief  objections  brought 
against  it ;  and  then  state  some  of  the  opposite  argu- 
ments, that  may  be  urged  in  its  favour. 

And  here  I  am  brought  into  collision  with  a  writer ' 
whom  I  should  wish  to  mention  with  honour,  because 
of  the  admirable  ability  that  he  has  brought  to  the 
treatment  of  his  subject.  It  is  only  to  be  regretted 
—though  at  the  same  time  in  a  writer  so  situated,  it 
could  not  have  been  expected — that  this  ability  is  not 
joined  with  an  equally  adequate  knowledge.  In  spite 
of  the  remarks  which  somewhat  deprecate  this  criti- 
cism, I  feel  compelled  to  express  my  belief  that  a 
little  more  extended  knowledge  might  have  been 
found  to  give  quite  a  different  turn  to  the  author's 
conclusions.  On  a  subject  where  the  facts  and  data 
are  so  complicated,  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  a  satis- 
factory conclusion  from  imperfect  premises^. 


*  The  author  of  The  Jesus  of 
History,  which  was  published  in 
iSf-Q  anonjTnously,  but  has  been 
since  acknowledged  by  Sir  Richard 
Hanson,  Chief  Justice  of  South 
Australia. 


^  Sir  Richard  Hanson  has  been 
unfortunate  in  his  authorities.  The 
chief  of  these  is  D'Eichthal,  Les 
Evnngiles,  Paris,  1 863.  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  this  work,  but  in 
those  with  which  I  am  acquainted 


St.  John  iv. 


Sir  Ricliard 
Hanson 
on  the 
Samaritnii 
episode. 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


A  conspicuous  instance  of  this  is  afforded  by  the 
author's  treatment  of  this  particular  subject,  the  inter- 
view with  the  woman  of  Samaria ',  It  is  one  of  the 
principal  charges  that  he  has  to  bring  against  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

The  argument  urged  as  conclusive  is  to  some  ex- 
tent a  priori.  Starting  from  the  notorious  hostility 
of  the  Samaritans  towards  the  Jews,  and  from  their 
supposed  rejection  of  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament, 
besides  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  inferred  that  they  cannot 
have  shared  the  Jewish  expectation  of  the  Messiah. 
Consequently  it  is  contended  that  the  whole  of  the 
discourse  with  the  Samaritan  woman  turns  upon  a 
false  assumption ;  that  to  a  genuine  Samaritan  the 
Messianic  claim  put  forward  in  it  would  have  excited 
not  eager  curiosity,  but  repulsion  ;  and  that  the 
alleged  conversion  of  the  Samaritans  cannot  be  other 
than  a  fiction. 

Thus  a  neat  theoretical  argument  is  constructed, 
which  bears  upon  the  face  of  it  a  considerable  degree 
of  plausibility.  But  it  shatters  against  the  single 
fact  that  the  Samaritans  did  at  that  time  actually 

it  is  not  spoken  of  with  respect. 
Meyer  {Pref.  to  Mark  and  Luke, 
p.  vii)  characterizes  it  as  a  spe- 
cimen of  '  Franzosischer  Leicht- 
fertigkeit,'  a  verdict  which  seems 
to  be  justified,  if  we  may  judge 
by  Sir  Richard  Hanson's  note  on 
p.  294.  Of  all  the  instances  that 
Sir  Richard  Hanson  cites  against 
the  Gospel  (pp.  79-91)  there  is 
only  one,  the  raising  of  Lazarus, 
that  will  bear  the  least  examination 
— and  that  is  only  the  general 
objection  against  miracles. — The 
argument  drawn  from  the  history  of 
the  Samaiitan  woman  I  have  dis- 
cussed above. — V.  4.  is  almost  cer- 


tainly spurious. — Why  should  not 
Peter  have  been  a  disciple  of  the 
Baptist? — The  difference  in  the 
position  assigned  to  that  Apostle 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  and  in  the 
Synoptists  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  difference  between  a  narration 
at  first  and  at  second  or  third  hand. 
He  is  still  '  primus  inter  pares,'  cf. 
vi.  68,  69,  xviii.   10,  xx.  2,  3,  6, 

Xxi.     3,     7,15    foil.     {ttXioV    TOVTQJV)  : 

but  St.  John  does  not  forget  that 
there  were  other  Apostles  besides. 
Hearsay  always  elevates  the  great 
and  suppresses  the  small. 

'■  Cf.    The  Jesus  0/  History,    pp. 
82-85. 


v-l 


SAAfARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


expect  a  T\Iessiah,  and  that  they  conthiue  to  do  so  to 
this  day'.  It  is  true  that  they  reject  the  prophetic 
books  ;  but  there  was  a  single  prediction  in  their  own 
cherished  Pentateuch,  which  served  to  keep  ahve  in 
them  the  hope  of  a  Messiah — that,  namely,  which 
rcLatcs  to  that  second  Prophet  Hke  unto  Moses,  to 
whom  all  the  world  was  to  hearken.  This  prediction 
sufficed  to  gather  round  it  a  legend,  as  defined  if  less 
copious  than  that  of  the  Jews.  The  hopes  of  the 
Samaritans  were  centered  especially  on  the  restora- 
tion of  the  sacred  vessels,  the  manna  and  the  tables 
of  the  Law,  which  had  been  lost  at  the  destruction  of 
Solomon's  temple.  These,  it  was  thought,  had  been 
hidden  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  a  place  which 
when  He  came  the  Messiah  should  reveal.  The  re- 
discovery of  the  law  was  to  be  followed  by  its  uni- 
versal acceptance.  All  the  world  was  to  be  converted, 
and  the  Messiah  was  to  reign  for  no  years.  It  ap- 
pears from  Josephus^,  that  in  the  later  years  of  the 
procuratorship  of  Pilate,  there  was  an  actual  rising  of 
the  Samaritans,  who  assembled  on  Mount  Garizim, 
under  the  influence  of  these  Messianic  expectations. 
Who  can  say  that  they  may  not  have  been  originally 
set  in  motion  by  the  event  recorded  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  ? 

Another  objection  to  the  historical  character  of 
that  event  is  derived  from  the  history  of  the  evan- 
gelisation of  Samaria^.      In  Acts  viii.  5,  Philip  the 

^  Cf.  Keim,  i.  !;i8.     Petcrmann  somewhere    on    English    ground, 

in  Ilerzog.  xiii.  373.  With    regard    to    that    which    is 

*  Ant.  xviii.  4.  I.  founded  on   Matt.  x.  5,  there  are 

'  This   objection  is   noticed   by  some  good  remarks  in  Alford,  p. 

Meyer,  Comni.  p.  208.     I  have  not  732.     It    is    a   mistake    to    square 

been  able  to  trace  it  to  its  source,  down  the  Gospel  histoi^y  by  rule 

Ijut  imagine  that  I  have   seen   it  and  line ;   just  as  it  would  be  to 


89 


St.  John  iv. 


Objection 
from 
Acts  viii. 


90 


SAMARIA   AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


deacon  is  represented  as  going  down  '  to  a  city  of 
Samaria,'  where  his  preaching  is  attended  with  much 
success.  It  is  assumed  with  perhaps  some  probabihty 
that  Sichem  is  meant.  And  it  is  argued  that  no  room 
is  left  for  PhiHp's  missionary  visit  if  the  Gospel  had 
already  been  preached  in  that  same  district.  But, 
waiving  the  question  as  to  the  identity  of  the  two 
places,  which  is  however  far  from  being  certain,  there 
vs,  still  really  nothing  inconsistent.  We  are  apt  to 
forget — and  this  has  been  a  source  of  especial  con- 
fusion and  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  fourth  Gospel — 
that  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  involved  not  only 
the  admission  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but  also 
a  total  recasting  of  the  Messianic  idea  itself.  No 
doubt  the  first  stage  was  much  more  often  reached 
than  the  second.  We  have  seen  that  it  was  at  this 
first  stage  that  the  Baptist  stood,  when  he  declared 
that  He  upon  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  was 
the  Christ.  He  was  cut  off  by  death,  before  his 
shaken  conviction  could  receive  its  due  enlargement. 
And  doubtless  there  were  many  who  never  got  be- 
yond the  simple  verbal  confession,  which  remained  a 
dead  letter  in  their  minds,  incapable  of  growth  and 
devoid  of  practical  consequences.  Thus  it  is  quite 
possible  that  in  those  two  days,  our  Lord  may  have 
found  willing  and  attentive  hearers ;  but  a  settled, 
permanent,  and  intelligent  belief,  could  scarcely  have 
been  formed  in  so  short  a  time.  When  the  crowd 
dispersed,  and  the  Teacher  was  gone,  and  no  tidings 
came  of  Messianic  triumphs,  while  the  sacred  vessels 


treat  any  other  history  in  the  same     cisely   one    of    those    '  exceptions 
way.     This  incident,  lil^e   that    of    which  prove  the  rule,' 
the  Syro-Phoenician  woman,  is  pre- 


v.] 


SAMAR/A  A. YD   GALILEE. 


91 


and  the  tables  of  stone  were  still  undiscovered,  we 
can  easily  understand  how  the  seed  sown  would  soon 
wither  away. 

The  last  objection  that  need  be  noticed,  is  that  of 
Dr.  Keim — according  to  whom  the  whole  story  is 
allegorical '.  He  finds  the  central  part  of  the  allegory 
in  the  allusion  to  the  woman's  five  husbands,  '  and  he 
whom  thou  now  hast,  is  not  thy  husband.'  Dr.  Keim 
sees  in  this  an  allegorical  representation  of  the  Sa- 
maritan histor}-.  The  five  husbands  are  the  five 
religions  which  the  heathen  immigrants  into  Samaria 
brought  with  them  out  of  Asia  ;  the  sixth  is  the 
mutilated  worship  of  Jehovah.  But  if  this  is  the  centre 
of  the  allegorj',  surely  it  ought  to  be  also  the  centre 
of  the  story.  On  the  contrary',  it  is  thrown  in  quite 
by  the  way,  and  the  rest  of  the  story  has  apparently 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  The  fourth  Gospel  certainly 
does  contain  allegorical  representations  ;  but  the 
Evangelist  is  always  careful  to  call  attention  to  them. 
Where  he  indicates  the  allegorical  interpretation 
himself,  we  may  well  follow  him  ;  but  we  ought  no 
less  to  accept  his  silence  as  final.  Beyond  the  mere 
accident  of  numbers,  there  is  no  appropriateness  in 
the  allegory,  and  there  is  nothing  to  bear  it  out  in 
the  details. 

We  cannot  then  regard  any  of  these  objections  as 
resting  upon  a  solid  foundation.  On  the  other  hand, 
apart  from  that  general  conclusion  as  to  the  character 
of  the  Gospel,  which  is  for  us,  I  venture  to  think,  by 
this  time  sufficiently  established,  there  are  many  little 
touches  in  the  narrative  that  favour  its  authenticity. 

*  Cf    Keim,  i.  116,  n.  3  ;  also  Scholten,  p.  156;    and  on  the  other 
side,  Wittichen,  p.  58,  n.  i. 


St.  John  iv. 


The  allego- 
rical theory. 


92 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 
vv.  1-42. 


The  introduction  has  all  the  value  that  attaches  to 
the  historical  notice  in  the  last  chapter,  of  which  it  is 
a  continuation.  It  shows  an  accurate  sense  of  the 
relation  of  metropolitan  Pharisaism  to  the  milder 
religious  spirit  of  the  provinces,  and  affords  a  natural 
motive  for  the  retirement  into  Galilee,  which,  if  we 
had  only  had  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  would  have  been 
unexplained. 

Ver.  2.  'Jesus  Himself  baptized  not,  but  His  dis- 
ciples,' serves  the  double  purpose  of  correcting  the 
report  which  had  just  been  described  as  coming  to 
the  Pharisees'  ears,  and  also  of  defining  more  closely 
the  Evangelist's  own  language.  No  doubt  it  has  also  a 
dogmatic  motive.  The  special  prerogative  of  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  baptize,  not  with  water,  but  with  the  Spirit. 
But  this  is  recognised  equally  by  the  Synoptists, 

The  direct  road  from  Judaea  to  Galilee  of  course  lay 
through  Samaria.  And  there  is  the  less  contradiction 
to  the  narrative  in  Luke  ix.  51-56,  because  in  that 
case  the  opposition  of  the  Samaritans  is  expressly 
grounded  upon  the  fact  that  the  faces  of  our  Lord 
and  of  His  company  were  as  though  they  would  go 
to  Jerusalem.  Here  the  party  was  moving  northward, 
away  from  Jerusalem.  But  we  gather  from  Josephus  ', 
that  it  was  not  at  all  an  uncommon  thing  for  the 
Galilean  caravans  to  brave  the  hostility  of  the  Sa- 
maritans, and  to  pass  directly  through  their  country 
on  their  way  to  the  Jewish  feasts. 

The  topography  of  Sychar  and  of  Jacob's  well  cor- 
responds to  the  description  of  modern  travellers.  The 
name  Sychar  is  not  the  common  one,  Sichem,  but  is 
a  mock  title  (  =  'liar,'  or  'drunkard,')  that  was  given  to 
1  A7it.  XX.  6.  I. 


SAMARIA  AND  GALILEE. 


93 


the  town  by  the  Jews '.  This  is  a  clear  reminiscence 
of  the  vernacular  that  the  Apostle  spoke  in  his  youth, 
and  is  a  strong  touch  of  nature.  It  is  not  quite  cer- 
tain that  the  name  Sychar  has  this  force,  but  the 
hypothesis  is  in  itself  more  likely  than  that  a  forger 
should  have  b}'  accident  got  hold  of  the  wrong  name. 
And  that  alternative  becomes  impossible  when  we 
take  into  account  the  abundant  instances  where  the 
Evangelists  topography  and  local  knowledge  is  be- 
yond suspicion.  It  is  not,  however,  by  any  means 
improbable  that  Sychar  may  represent,  not  Sichem, 
but  the  modern  village  Askar,  which  is  somewhat 
nearer  to  Jacob's  well. 

The  incident  is  told  with  the  Evangelist's  usual 
circumstantiality.  '  Then  cometh  He  to  a  city  of  Sa- 
maria, which  is  called  Sychar,  near  to  the  parcel  of 
ground  that  Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph.  Now 
Jacob's  well  was  there.  Jesus  therefore,  being  wearied 
with  His  journey,  sat  thus'  (as  He  was)  'on  the  well  : 
and  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour.'  '  Thou  hast  nothing 
to  draw  with,  and  the  well  is  deep'  (lOO  feet)  -.  '  His 
disciples  had  gone  away  into  the  city  to  buy  meat.' 
'  The  woman  then  left  her  waterpot,  and  went  her  way 


'  This  may  perhaps  be  called 
the  cunent  explanation  of  the 
name.  It  is  accepted  as  well  by 
those  who  deny  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospel  as  by  those  who 
maintain  it.  Cf.  Keim,  i.  133.  But 
there  is  much  to  be  said  for  the 
identification  with  EI  Askar,  cf. 
Caspari.  p.  107  and  G.  in  H.D. 

'■'  Cf  Keim,  iii.  15,  iG.  Dr.  Keim, 
in  his  new  volume,  though  still 
holding  to  his  allegorical  thcoiy, 
fully  acknowledges  the  truth  and 
accuracy  of  the  description,  which 
is  called  by  Furrer  {\.\\g  geographer) 


'  eine  Perle  der  Anschaulichkeit ' — 
immediately  in  the  front  of  the 
picture  the  well  100  feet  deep, 
Mount  Garizim  rising  to  a  sheer 
height  of  Soo  feet  above  it,  with 
the  ruins  of  the  temple  destroyed 
by  llyrcanus  visible  upon  its  sum- 
mit, and  a  little  to  the  east  the 
smiling  corn-lands  of  Mokhnah. 
Dr.  Ktim  has  come  round  to  the 
identification  with  El  Askar,  though 
he  tries  to  combine  this  with  the 
old  view — as  though  the  town  had 
been  chosen  on  account  of  its  ctm- 
temptuous  name. 


St.  John  iv. 


94 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


into  the  city.'  '  Then  they  went  out  of  the  city,  and 
came  unto  Him.'  (Nablus,  or  Sichem,  is  about  a  mile 
from  the  traditional  site  of  Jacob's  well ;  Askar,  appa- 
rently about  half  that  distance).  Can  Dr.  Keim  find 
dogmatic  symbolism,  or  symbolism  of  any  sort  in 
these  details  ? 

The  local  colouring,  like  the  topography,  is  well 
preserved.  '  The  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Sa- 
maritans.' 'Art  Thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob,' 
&c.  '  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this  mountain'  (Gari- 
zim,  which  rises  immediately  above  Jacob's  well).  'Ye 
say  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place  where 'men  ought 
to  worship.'  '  I  know  that  Messias  cometh  :  when  He 
is  come,  He  will  tell  us  all  things.'  We  might  sup- 
pose, though  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  direct  evi- 
dence for  it,  that  the  function  of  the  Messiah  as  a 
teacher  would  be  especially  prominent  in  the  Samari- 
tan belief.  The  description  of  the  Great  Prophet  of 
the  future  in  Deuteronomy,  points  chiefly  to  this. 
'Him  shall  ye  Jiear !'  '  I  will  put  My  zvords  in  his 
mouth  ;  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them,  all  that  I  shall 
command  him.' 

It  is  impossible  to  say  exactly  how  much  of  the 
dialogue  was  spoken  in  the  terms  in  which  it  is 
recorded.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  it  must  have 
been  related  to  the  disciples  by  Jesus  Himself;  but 
seeing  that  the  whole  company  remained  two  days  in 
the  neighbourhood,  it  is  as  possible,  and  perhaps  more 
probable,  that  much  of  it  came  from  the  woman. 

Of  the  symbolical  language  of  the  first  part  of  the 
discourse,  and  the  apparent  unintelligence  of  the 
woman,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  later '. 

^  In   the    mean    time   we    may  quote  a  good  note   of  Schottgen's 


v.] 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


95 


The  gradual  development  of  the  woman's  belief  is 
psychologically  true  ;  esjoecially  its  first  stage,  '  Sir,  I 
perceive  that  Thou  art  a  prophet.'  Her  next  question 
is  grounded  upon  this  \  It  is  the  vexed  question  of 
the  time  which  she  puts  to  this  prophet,  thinking  that 
He  can  solve  it  for  her.  Confused  and  dazzled,  as  it 
were,  at  the  answer  she  receives,  and  as  if  confessing 
her  inability  to  understand  it,  she  appeals  to  the 
Christ  who  should  come,  and  should  then  make  all 
things  clear. 

We  shall  surely  be  justified  in  attributing  the 
wonderful  words  of  verses  21,  23,  24,  to  One  greater 
even  than  St.  John.  They  seem  to  breathe  the  spirit 
of  other  worlds  than  ours — '  of  worlds  whose  course 
is  equable  and  pure ;'  where  all  that  is  local  and  tem- 
porary is  done  away ;  where  media  and  vehicles  of 
grace  are  unneeded,  and  the  soul  knows  even  as  also 
it  is  known.  There  is  nothing  so  like  them  in  their 
sublime  infinitude  of  comprehension,  and  intense  pene- 
tration to  the  deepest  roots  of  things,  as  some  of  the 
sayings  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount :  '  He  maketh 
His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,'  (Matt.  v. 
45);  and,  'Thou,  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy 
closet,  and  shut  thy  door,'  (Matt.  vi.  6).  It  is  words 
like  these  that  strike  home  to  the  hearts  of  men,  as  in 
the  most  literal  sense  Divine. 

The  incidental  glimpse  of  the  theology  of  the 
Gospel  afforded  by  ver.  22,  *  Ye  worship  ye  know  not 

in   regard  to  the  parallel  case  of    oribus  vestigia  quaedam  relineren- 


the  unintelligence  of  Nicodemus, 
'  Tempora  tunc  erant  obscura  et 
per'urbata,  quibus  plerique  in  luto 
traditionum  TraTpoirapaSuToiv  vol- 
vebantur,  ita  ut  veritates  solidae  ac 
divinae  negligerentur,  et  a  pauci- 


tur.  Si  exemplo  simili  rem  illustra- 
tam  cupis,  propone  tibi  Scholasti- 
corum  tempora,  quibus  eadem 
prorsus  rcrum  facies  erat.'  {Hor. 
Heb.  p.  328. 

'  Cf.  Meyer,  ad  loc. 


St.  John  iv. 


96 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


what :  we  know  what  we  worship  :  for  salvation  is  of 
the  Jews' — destroys  at  once  the  hypothesis  that  it 
was  written  by  a  Gnosticizing  Greek.  Accordingly 
those  who  assume  this  hypothesis  are  obliged  to 
suppose  that  the  verse  is  an  interpolation,  without  a 
shadow  of  reason  beyond  what  is  supplied  by  their 
own  faulty  a  priori  system  '. 

Ver.  27.  '  Upon  this  came  His  disciples,  and  mar- 
velled that  He  talked  with  the  woman  :  yet  no  man 
said,  What  seekest  Thou  ?  or,  Why  talkest  Thou  with 
her?'' — has  all  the  appearance  of  a  personal  remi- 
niscence on  the  part  of  the  Apostle.  It  was  against  the 
Rabbinical  code  to  hold  intercourse  with  a  woman  ^. 

A  dialogue  such  as  that  in  verses  31-34,  may  very 
well  have  happened  ;  ver.  34,  especially, '  My  meat  is  to 
do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish  His  work,' 
recalls  the  Synoptic ;  '  Thou  shalt  not  live  by  bread 
alone,'  if  not  also,  '  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about 
My  Father's  business,'  [al.  'in  My  Father's  house'). 

The  note  of  time  ^  in  the  verse  following  is  given 
precisely  in  the  manner  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
'  Say  ye  not.  There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then 
Cometh  the  harvest  ?  Behold,  I  say  unto  you,  Lift  up 
your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields  ;  for  they  are  white 
already  to  harvest.'  The  sight  of  the  springing  corn 
suggests  the  thought  of  the  harvest  of  souls.  To  our 
Lord  the  future  is  visible  in  the  present.  The  corn  is 
barely  appearing  above  the  ground,  and  yet  He  sees 


'  Cf.  The  Jesus  oJUhtory,  p.  85, 
n.  I. 

^  Cf.  Meyer,  p.  202.  Lightfoot, 
Hor.  Heb.  p.  543. 

^  Alford  contests  the  chronolo- 
gical application  of  this  verse ;  but     addressing. 


I  do  not  see  how  rerpaixrjvot  iariv, 
K.T.X.  can  be  made  into  a  proverb ; 
and  oxjK  hjxiis  Ki'^f^n  merely  ex- 
presses the  different  range  of  vision 
in  the   Speaker  and  those   He   is 


v.] 


SAMARIA  AND  GALILEE. 


97 


it  already  in  car  and  white  for  the  sickle.  What  fol- 
lows is  a  prophecy  of  the  success  which  should  attend 
the  labours  of  the  Apostles'  building  upon  His  founda- 
tion. It  is  possible  that  there  may  be  mingled  with 
it  something  of  the  experience  of  the  aged  missionary 
Apostle  himself,  feeling  that  he  has  but  reaped  where 
he  had  not  sown. 

Objection  has  been  taken  to  the  expression,  '  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,'  in  verse  42  ^  It  probably  belongs 
not  to  the  Samaritans,  but  to  the  Evangelist.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  possible  that  such  an  epithet  might 
be  applied  by  them  merely  as  synonymous  with 
'  Messiah,' 

The  next  section  of  the  chapter  opens  with  a  well- 
known  difficulty-.  We  read  that  'Jesus  went  from 
Samaria,  and  came  into  Galilee.  For  Jesus  Himself 
testified  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own 
country.'  But  how  could  this  be .''  Galilee  was  the 
Ibia  -naTpis.  Surely  then  the  reason  assigned  would  be 
one  for  avoiding  it,  rather  than  for  going  thither. 
There  is  an  apparent  contradiction ;  and  it  is  at  all 
events  clear  that  the  privu  facie  explanation  is  not 
the  right  one. 

It  hardly  seems  admissible  to  suppose  that  Galilee 
was  sought  for  the  sake  of  privacy  and  retirement ; 
or,  with  Ellicott,  that  Samaria  was  left  for  the  same 
reason  ;  or,  with  Liicke  and  Tischendorf,  that  yap  is 
simply  introductory,  and  that  the  verse  defines  the 
character  of  the  ensuing  Galilean  ministry.  One  is 
perhaps  reluctant  to  give  up  the  old  explanation  of 

'   Cf.  The  Jesus  of  History,  p.  85. 

-  Cf.  Huh.  Led.  p.  133,11.  I.;  Liicke,  i.  617;    Tischendorf,  Synopsis. 
p.  xxvi ;  Meyer,  p.  209. 

II 


St.  John  iv. 


vv.  43-4.5- 


98 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


Origen,  that  by  iUa  TTarpis  is  meant  Judaea,  as  the 
'  home  of  the  prophets  ;'  but  it  seems  to  be  necessary, 
as  Judaea  has  not  been  mentioned  since  the  beginning 
of  the  chapter,  and  the  only  two  districts  in  question 
are  Samaria  and  Galilee.  We  seem  therefore  to  be 
driven  to  accept  some  such  view  as  that  of  Meyer. 
'A  prophet  has  no  honour  in  his  own  country.'  There- 
fore our  Lord  had  left  Galilee,  in  order  to  announce 
and  substantiate  His  prophetic  character  in  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  now,  the  obstacle  being  removed  and  the 
credentials  secured.  He  returned.  This  agrees  well 
with  what  follows  ;  '  Then  when  (when  therefore)  He 
was  come  into  Galilee,  the  Galileans  received  Him, 
having  seen  all  the  things  that  He  did  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  feast : '  and  in  English,  the  idiom  by  which  the  re- 
moval of  an  objection  is  regarded  as  a  positive  cause, 
is  not  uncommon.  There  is,  indeed,  some  room  to 
question  whether  the  same  idiom  would  be  equally 
natural  in  Greek.  But  it  should  be  remembered  that 
we  are  not  dealing  with  classical  Greek,  and  that 
much  would  depend  upon  the  individual  writer.  The 
causal  connections  in  the  fourth  Gospel  are  often  per- 
plexing. 

But  the  difficulty,  whatever  may  be  its  true  solu- 
tion, is  strictly  one  of  exegesis.  To  infer,  as  some 
members  of  the  Tubingen  school  have  done ',  that  the 
saying  is  taken  directly  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
and  that  the  Evangelist  has  not  known  where  to  place 
it,  is  not  warranted  either  by  the  relation  which  he 
usually  bears  to  the  Synoptists,  or  by  his  own  cha- 
racter. Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  in  other  respects,  he  is  one  who  tho- 
1  So  Schwegler  and  Hilgenfeld,  as  quoted  in  Meyer's  note  (p.  210). 


v.] 


SAMARIA   AND   GALILEE. 


99 


roughly  knows  his  own  mind,  and  is  thoroughly  cap- 
able of  fitting  his  facts  into  the  framework  that  he  has 
chosen  for  them.  It  is  rash  to  argue  an  historical  error 
from  a  mere  obscurity  of  style. 

At  last  we  touch  the  ground  that  is  occupied  by 
the  Synoptists  ;  and  the  Evangelist  hardly  sets  foot 
upon  it  before  he  leaves  it  again.  It  is  really  little 
or  no  objection  that  the  part  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
that  we  have  just  traversed,  has  to  be  inserted  in  the 
interv'al  between  the  Synoptic  account  of  the  Baptism 
and  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist.  Any  one  who 
has  studied  the  Synoptic  Gospels  at  all,  must  be  pre- 
pared to  find  great  gaps  in  their  narrative.  And  pre- 
cisely at  this  very  point  a  gap  seems  to  be  indicated  '. 
Indeed  it  seems  to  be  almost  necessary  to  assume  the 
truth  of  the  Johannean  narrative,  in  order  to  make 
that  of  the  Synoptists  intelligible.  For  we  find  that 
not  only  do  the  disciples  obey  a  mere  command,  but 
the  crowds  evince  an  eagerness,  and  '  the  scribes '  an 
amount  of  jealousy,  that  can  hardly  be  accounted  for, 
except  by  supposing  that  the  public  ministry  had 
been  for  some  time  in  progress.  The  chief  difficulty 
is  the  Synoptic  account  of  the  calling  of  the  Apostles. 
But  I  still  think  it  would  be  a  hasty  judgment  to  say 
that  it  excludes  the  Johannean.  If  we  knew  all  the 
circumstances,  the  difference  would  probably  be  less 
than  it  seems.  The  Synoptic  account  would  perhaps 
receive    some    modification,    which    should     make    it 


'  Cf.  Mark  i.  14.     After  giving  and  a  considerable  one,  is  implied 

an  account  of  the  Temptation,  the  here  ;    and    the   expression    '  came 

Evangelist    continues,   '  Now  after  into  Galilee '  involves  a  change  of 

that   John   was   cast    into    prison  place  such  as  that  described  in  the 

Jesus   came   into   Galilee.'      It    is  fourth  Gospel, 
natural  to  suppose  that  an  interval, 

H  2 


St.  John  iv. 


vv.  46-54. 

The  ad- 
ditional 
matter  in 
St.  John. 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  iv. 


appear  that  this  was  not  the  first  calHng,  but  a  re- 
calHng.  My  own  surmise  would  be,  that  the  httle 
company,  probably  of  some  five  or  six,  but  not  twelve 
disciples,  who  had  voluntarily  attended  our  Lord  into 
Judaea,  parted  for  a  time  after  His  return.  But  this 
IS  but  conjecture.  Taken  exactly  as  they  stand,  the 
two  accounts  are  not  easy  to  fit  into  one  another  ^ ; 
but  they  would  doubtless  be  much  more  so,  if  we  had 
them  in  a  fuller  form.  At  any  rate,  to  assert  a  sweep- 
ing negative,  as  if  their  reconciliation  was  impossible, 
is  to  ignore  daily  experience,  and  to  narrow  the  lati- 
tude of  possibilities  quite  unjustifiably. 

The  one  fact  out  of  this  prolonged  sojourn  in  Ga- 
lilee selected  for  narration  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  the 
healing  of  the  '  nobleman's  son.'  Are  we  to  regard 
this  as  the  same  with  the  miracle  recorded  in  Matt, 
viii.  I  foil. ;  Luke  vii.  2  foil.  .'*  In  spite  of  considerable 
difficulties,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  we  are.  The 
two  Synoptists  have  here  derived  their  account  from 
different  sources  ■^ ;  and  they  help  to  reconcile  each 
other  in  turn  with  St.  John.  St.  Matthew,  by  writing 
irais,  shows  how  St.  Luke  misunderstood  the  document 
from  which  he  is  quoting,  by  writing  80DA0?.  On  the 
other  hand,  St.  Luke's  mention  of  the  elders  of  the 
Jews  is  valuable  ;  and  explains  much  that  would  other- 
wise be  obscure.     It  explains,  first,  the  consent  of  our 


'  Cf.  The  Jesus  of  History,^.  173, 
note  I.  'Irreconcilable;  that  is, 
if  we  regard  the  spirit  and  intention 
of  the  writers,  though  no  doubt 
capable  of  being  reconciled  if  we 
look  to  the  mere  facts  they  relate.' 
This  difference  in  spirit  and  inten- 
tion may  well  have  proceeded  from 
imperfect  knowledge  on  the  part  of 


the  Synoptists. 

^  Or  rather,  they  are  both  draw- 
ing from  the  same  source,  which  in 
St.  Luke's  case  is  enlarged  by  a 
special  tradition.  This  may  be 
connected  with  the  fact  that  the 
third  Evangelist  displays  generally 
a  peculiar  acquaintance  with  the 
court  of  Herod. 


v.] 


SAMARIA   AND   GALILEE. 


lOI 


Lord  to  perform  the  miracle  at  all, — otherwise,  sup-  St.  John  iv. 
posing  the  centurion  to  be  a  heathen,  it  would  be 
unprecedented  and  almost  in  contradiction  with  Matt. 
XV.  21-28,  (the  Syro-Phoenician  woman).  But  we 
gather  that  he  came  within  that  somewhat  vague 
term,  a  'proselyte  of  the  gate.'  He  was  at  least  a 
benefactor  of  the  Jewish  community,  and  had  built 
them  a  synagogue.  In  the  second  place,  the  mention 
of  the  elders  explains  the  different  tone  assumed  by 
our  Lord  in  the  two  Synoptists  and  in  St.  John.  We 
are  to  suppose  that  the  centurion  comes  attended 
by  these  elders  who  support  him  in  preferring  his 
petition.  St.  John  will  then  give  the  address  to  the 
ciders  ('  Except  yc  see  signs  and  wonders  ye  will  not 
believe^');  while  the  Synoptists  record  the  reply  to 
the  centurion  himself.  Both  versions  thus  remain 
intact,  and  the  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  har- 
monizing them  seems  to  be  removed.  The  hypothesis, 
too,  by  which  this  is  done,  is  simple  and  easy  in 
itself  ;  it  is  suggested,  if  not  necessitated,  by  the 
relation  of  the  two  Synoptic  accounts  to  each  other ; 
and  it  agrees  with  an  incidental  expression  in  St. 
John.  I  incline,  therefore,  to  think  that  the  two 
miracles  are  to  be  identified. 

On  this  supposition  we  shall  give  the  advantage 
in  one  respect  alone  (the  centurion's  prayer)  to  the 
Synoptists.  This  is  characteristically  a  matter  of 
words.  But  in  all  other  respects,  as  to  the  time,  place 
and  circumstances  of  the  miracle,  the  advantage  in 
definiteness  and  precision  is  on  the  side  of  St.  John. 

It  appears  to  agree  with  the  context  here  slightly 

'  Those  who  insist  upon  the  plural  ollayav  in  xx.  2,  can  hardly  refuse 
to  admit  a  special  force  in  the  plural  here. 


SAMARIA  AND   GALILEE. 


St.  John  iv.  better  to  suppose  that  the  Roman  civil  mode  of 
I  reckoning  time  has  been  followed  ;  and  that  therefore 
I  the  interview  of  the  centurion  with  our  Lord  was  at 
seven  o'clock  in  the  evening.  Otherwise  it  is  not  quite 
obvious,  why  he  should  not  have  returned  to  Caper- 
naum until  the  next  day,  the  distance  being  only 
about  twenty-five  miles.  But  there  are  many  causes 
that  might  have  detained  him ;  we  do  not  know  that 
he  had  not  come  out  from  Capernaum  that  same 
day.  Or  is  it  wholly  impossible  that  the  Jewish  day 
beginning  with  sunset,  'yesterday'  might  not  apply 
strictly  to  the  afternoon  just  elapsed  ? 


CHAPTER    VI. 


THE   MIRACLE   AT   BETHESDA. 


NOW  occurs  a  gap  in  the  Johannean  narrative 
nearly  as  large  as  that  which  we  have  already 
discovered  in  the  Synoptists.  The  fifth  chapter  contains 
an  isolated  fragment  of  history,  the  date  of  which  is 
fixed,  according  to  the  chronology  that  we  are  follow- 
ing, at  the  Feast  of  Purim,  in  March  a.d,  29 ;  but 
which  may  bear  almost  any  relation  to  the  Synoptic 
history  from  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  son  to  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand'. 


'  I  do  not  know  what  may  be 
the  '  insunnountable  chronological 
difficulties'  (Luke  iv.  i6,  vi.  i  ?) 
which  according  to  Bishop  Ellicott 
stand  in  the  way  of  '  Lange's  at- 
tempt to  interpolate  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  events  of  the  earlier 
Galilean  ministry  between  the  re- 
turn through  Samaria  and  the 
Feast  of  Purim.'  (Cf.  Huls.  Led. 
p.  149  n.)  If  these  events  (from 
Mark  i.  14  to  Mark  vi.  45)  can  be 
fitted  into  less  than  one  month, 
surely  they  can  be  fitted  into  four. 
To  crowd  them  into  three  weeks  is 
to  exaggerate  the  want  of  propor- 
tion in  the  Synoptic  narrative.  And 
it  must  be  very  forced  to  suspend 
that  narrative  again  for  as  much  as 
three  months  just  as  it  seems  to  be 
upon  the  point  of  beginning  (i.  e.  in 


the  space  between  Mark  i.  15,  16). 
It  might  perhaps  be  suggested  that 
the  visit  to  Jerusalem  was  made 
during  the  absence  of  the  Apostles 
upon  their  mission,  which  the  har- 
monistic  theory  reduces  to  two 
days!  But  without  pressing  this, 
I  do  not  see  that  there  need  be  any 
difficulty,  unless  we  assume  for  the 
Synoptic  chronology  a  fi.vity  that 
does  not  belong  to  it,  and  that 
leads  to  a  reconstruction  of  the 
narrative  which  is  artificial  and 
mechanical  in  the  extreme.  Ac- 
cording to  the  harmonists  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Mark  is  distributed 
thus.  a.  Mark  i.  15,  16,  blank, 
period  of  three  months ;  /3.  Mark  i. 
16 — vii.  23,  twenty-one  sections, 
txventy-three  days  exacdy  ;  7.  Mark 
vii.    24 — ix.   50,    eleven    sections, 


St.  John  V. 
I-16. 


104 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


Our  Lord  pays  a  short  and  rapid  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
and  there  performs  the  miracle  recorded  in  the  first 
nine  verses  of  the  chapter.  Before  we  examine  this 
miracle  more  closely,  it  is  well  to  clear  the  text  of  an 
insertion,  which  w^ould  otherwise  be  a  strange  excep- 
tion to  the  general  sobriety  of  the  canonical  Gospels, 
and  might  tend  to  prejudice  the  credit  of  the  Evan- 
gelist. The  whole  passage  from  iKoexoixivoov  in  ver.  3 
down  to  the  end  of  v^er.  4,  containing  the  legend  of 
the  moving  of  the  waters,  is  on  documentary  grounds, 
we  may  say,  certainly  spurious.  The  AJexandrine  is 
the  only  one  among  the  best  RISS.  that  contains  it, 
and  that  in  a  different  and  abridged  form.  It  is  want- 
ing in  some  of  the  most  ancient  versions  ;  and  is  ex- 
punged by  the  best  editors  \  We  may  therefore 
ignore  it  without  any  fear  of  having  been  led  to  do  so 
by  other  extrinsic  considerations. 

When  we  leave  out  this  passage,  and  read  through 
the  rest  of  the  narrative  as  it  stands  in  St.  John,  it  is 
impossible  not  to  feel  a  strong  sense  of  its  vividness 
and  reality.  The  author  of  the  Gospel  was  evidently 
well  acquainted  with  the  topography  of  Jerusalem. 
What  could  be  more  precise  than  his  description  of 
'  the  pool  by  the  sheep(-gate),'  with  its  five  porches 
or  colonnades,  and  its  Hebrew  name  Bethesda,  'the 
house  of  mercy.'  The  '  sheepgate '  occurs  in  Nehemiah 
xii.  39,  'And  from  above  the  gate  of  Ephraim,  and 


scattered  promiscuously  over  six 
months;  8.  Markx.  I — 45,  scattered 
over  six  months  ;  e.  x.  46— x^^.  q, 
about  eight  days.  Surely  it  is 
better  to  break  down  the  barrier 
between  a  and  P  and  distribute 
Mark  i.  16 — vii.  2.^  promiscuously 
over  the  whole  four  months  like 


the  rest,  thus  g^^■ing  three  periods 
of  four,  six,  and  six  months  re- 
spectively. Compare  EUicott,  Led. 
iii,  iv,  V.  Wieseler,  Cbron.  Syn. 
pp.  239-285. 

'■  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Meyer. 
Liicke,  Ewald,  Alford. 


^^.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETI/ESDA. 


ro.= 


above  the  old  gate,  and  above  the  fish  gate,  and 
the  tower  of  Hananeel,  and  the  tower  of  Meah,  even 
unto  the  sheep  gate :  and  they  stood  still  in  the  prison 
gate:'  it  appears  to  have  been  situated  on  the  north- 
east circuit  of  the  city  wall,  near  the  tower  of  Antonia. 
The  name  Bcthesda  is  not  found  elsewhere  ;  but 
tradition  identifies  the  locality  with  a  ruined  reservoir 
now  called  Birket  Israin',  and  the  word  itself,  Bethesda, 
is  one  of  legitimate  and  natural  formation  ^  The  pool 
appears  to  have  possessed  mineral  qualities,  and  to 
have  been  subject  to  intermittent  disturbance,  doubt- 
less from  the  nature  of  the  spring  that  supplied  it. 
Round  it  there  appears  to  have  grown  up  a  sort  of 
charitable  institution,  by  which  these  five  colonnades 
had  been  provided  for  the  protection  of  the  sick 
persons  who  were  kept  waiting  for  the  moment  when 
the  spring  should  become  active.  It  would  seem  that 
the  space  covered  by  its  activity  was  only  large  enough 
to  contain  one  person  at  a  time.  Hence  the  very 
natural  complaint  of  the  poor  cripple,  that  having  no 
one  to  carry  him  to  the  pool  he  was  always  forestalled. 
We  are  not  told  how  long  he  had  been  there,  but  he 
had  been  ill  thirty-eight  years.  The  simple  words, 
'  Rise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk,'  are  sufficient ;  and 
the  man  at  once  obeys  the  command. 

The  cure  had  been  performed  on  the  sabbath-day. 
Accordingly  the  Jews,  seeing  the  man  walk,  remon- 
strate with  him,  and  afterwards  finding  it  was  Jesus 
by  whom  the  cure  had  been  performed,  they  seek  to 
kill   Him.     The  whole   narrative  is  in  keeping  with 

*  Cf.  Caspari,  p.  114;  EUicott,  n.  r.  According  to  Ewald,  p.  202, 
p.  139,  n.  2 ;  G.  in  S.  D.,  &c.  the  name  is  not  pure  Hebrew  but 

^  Kenan,  p.  495  ;  Ellicott,  p.  140,     Aramaic. 


St.  John  V. 


io6 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


vv.  17-47. 


St.  John  V.    parallel  cases  in  the  Synoptists\     At  the  same  time 

the  localisation  is  so  distinct  and  minute,  that  there 

I  can  hardly  have  been  any  confusion.     It  is  exceed- 

1  irigly  probable  that  several  miracles  of  this  sort  would 

take  place,  and  it  would  be  only  likely  that  they  would 

'  reproduce  somewhat  similar  features, 

I      The  discourse  which  follows,  while  it  arises  out  of 

the  accusation  based  on  the  supposed  breach  of  the 

sabbath,  has  othenvise  no  fixed  historical  framework. 

I  There  is  no  notice  of  the  effect  made  by  it  upon  the 

.hearers,  except,  perhaps,  incidentally  in  verse  31.     It 

I  ends,  as  it  were,  in  the  air :  and  the  sequel  is  not  told. 

!  We  are  therefore  not  surprised  to  find  that  it  bears  a 

j  Johannean  colouring.     But  the  question  is,  how  deep 

!  does  that  colouring  extend  .' 

Let  us,  first,  map  out  the  discourse  briefly  in  its 
several  sections.  A.  a.  It  begins  with  a  defence  of  the 
healing  upon  the  Sabbath  day,  based  upon  the 
relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  Just  as  the  activity 
of  the  Father  is  continuous,  notwithstanding  the  rest 
on  the  seventh  day — the  work  of  Creation  only  giving 
place  to  the  work  of  Redemption — so  does  the  Son 
exercise  His  proper  work  in  spite  of  the  obligation 
of  the  Sabbath,  to  which  it  is  indeed  no  contradiction. 
)3.  Then  the  closeness  and  intimacy  of  the  relation 
between  the  Son  and  the  Father  is  further  asserted  ; 


18. 


w.  19,  20. 


^  '  Arise  and  walk,'  cf.  Mark  ii. 
9 ;  miracle  on  the  sabbath-day, 
followed  by  hostile  attempts,  Mark 
iii.  2-6.  These  ver}'  passages  show 
that  the  Johaimean  narrative  is  not 
consciously  constructed  out  of  ma- 
terial furnished  by  the  Synoptists. 
For  the  mechanical  combination  of 
tvvo  such  passages  would  be  ii  the 


highest  degree  far-fetched  and  im- 
probable, especially  when  the  same 
purpose  might  have  been  equally 
well  sers-ed  by  reproducing  either 
or  both  separately  as  they  stood. 
Such  elaborate  and  gratuitous  art 
would  be  not  less  contrary  to  the 
practice  of  that  age  than  of  all 
ages. 


VI.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


107 


and  proved  by  a  twofold  power  that  the  Son  has 
committed  to  Him.  y.  This  is,  (i.)  the  power  of  com- 
municating spiritual  life,  by  virtue  of  the  life  which 
He  Himself  possesses.  Parenthetically  the  honour  of 
the  Son  is  asserted  as  grounded  upon  this,  (ii.)  That  of 
causing  the  bodily  resurrection  of  all  the  dead,  both 
good  and  bad  ;  when  the  Son  shall  also  sit  in  judg- 
ment, and  dispense  both  the  consummated  life  in  the 
perfected  heavenly  kingdom,  and  the  final  condemna- 
tion, e.  That  by  which  the  Son  is  qualified  for  the 
exercise  of  these  high  prerogatives  is  the  perfect 
identity  of  His  will  with  that  of  the  Father. 

B.  C  Such  are  His  rightful  claims.  If  they  rested 
merely  upon  His  own  word,  there  might  be  reason  to 
doubt  and  dispute  them  ;  but  they  rest  on  that  of  One 
whose  witness  cannot  but  be  true.  John,  indeed,  bare 
witness  ;  but  that  witness  our  Lord  will  not  urge.  He 
only  mentions  it  in  order  to  call  to  the  mind  of  the 
Jews  their  neglect  of  it  and  of  him  who  gave  it.  His 
was  a  secondary  light  kindled  at  another  flame 
(Kato'/zeros,  pass.)'.  The  Son  of  Man  can  appeal  to  no 
less  a  witness  than  that  of  the  Father :  ?;.  as  borne 
(i.)  through  the  works,  i.e.  the  sum  of  those  Messianic 
powers,  that  He  has  given  Him,  0.  (ii.)  through  that 
revelation  which  the  Jews  would  not  receive.  Neither 
the  written  Word,  in  which  they  professed  to  look  for 
salvation,  nor  yet  his  own  Visible  Presence  had  led 
them  to  Him.  Thus  they  belied  their  pretended 
knowledge  of  the  Father,  i.  Not  that  the  Son  of  God 
need  seek  for  honour  from  men  ;  but  that  He  saw  in 
those  who  rejected  Him  a  spirit  and  a  state  of  mind, 

'  Cf.  Lightfoot  on  Revision,  p.  1 17.  The  phrase  is  a  Hebraism,  c(.Hor. 
Heb.  p.  550. 


St.  John  V. 
vv.  21-24. 

vv.  25-29. 


V.  30. 


vv.  .^1-35- 


V.  36. 


vv.  37-40- 


vv.  41-44. 


io8 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


that  must  necessarily  close  their  eyes  against  the 
truth.  They  were  too  full  of  worldliness  and  selfish 
ambition  to  recognise  that  which  was  true  and  divine. 
If  one  had  come  appealing  to  these  motives,  him  they 
would  have  acknowledged.  But  it  is  to  the  single- 
hearted  love  of  God  alone,  that  God  and  Christ  are 
revealed,  k.  It  is  vain  to  fall  back  upon  Moses.  His 
writings  themselves  condemn  this  unbelief:  for  they 
had  prophesied  of  Him  against  whom  it  was  directed. 

Summarily  we  may  say  that  the  first  half  of  this 
discourse  (A.  vv.  17-30)  relates  to  the  powers  and 
prerogatives  of  the  Son  of  God ;  the  second  part 
(B.  vv.  31-47)  is  an  exposure  of  the  unbelief  of  the 
Jews,  its  nature,  and  causes,  and  the  guilty  obstinacy 
with  which  it  was  persisted  in,  in  the  face  of  clear  and 
convincing  evidence. 

a.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  as 
well  as  in  the  fourth,  our  Lord  vindicates  His  claim  to 
suspend  the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  :  but  with  this 
difference,  that  there  it  is  by  virtue  of  His  relation  to 
man  ;  '  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath :  therefore  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord 
also  of  the  Sabbath '  (Mark  ii.  27,  28).  Here  it  is  by 
virtue  of  His  relation  to  God.  But  in  the  passages 
from  the  Synoptists,  as  indeed  wherever  the  title  of 
Son  of  Man  is  mentioned,  it  is  not  merely  a  common 
humanity  that  is  meant.  The  argument  is  a  fortiori, 
If  the  Sabbath  is  subject  to  man,  much  more  to  the 
Son  of  Man.  The  exalted  Messianic  dignity  implied  in 
the  term  is  not  left  out  of  sight.  In  St.  John  this  side 
is  put  forward  alone :  and  it  forms  the  complement  to 
the  other.  It  is  highly  probable  that  words  similar  to 
those  recorded  were  actually  spoken. 


VI.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


109 


/^.  The  argument  in  the  next  clause  has  many 
parallels  in  St.  John  and  but  one  in  the  Synoptists. 
That,  however,  seems  to  be  decisive  in  favour  of  its 
substantial  authenticity.  The  relation  of  the  Son  to 
the  Father  is  seldom  alluded  to  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  But  a  single  verse  in  which  it  is,  seems  to 
contain  the  essence  of  the  Johannean  theology.  Matt, 
xi.  27  :  '  All  things  are  delivered  unto  Me  of  My 
Father;  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father; 
neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  save  the  Son, 
and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.'  This 
passage  is  one  of  the  best  authenticated  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  It  is  found  in  exact  parallelism  both  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  ;  and  is  therefore  known  to 
have  been  part  of  that  '  collection  of  discourses  \'  in 
all  probability  the  composition  of  the  Apostle  St. 
Matthew,  which  many  critics  believe  to  be  the  oldest 
of  all  the  Evangelical  documents.  And  yet  once  grant 
the  authenticity  of  this  passage,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  Johannean  Christology  that  it  does  not  cover. 
Even  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  seems  to  be  im- 
plicitly contained  in  it.  For  how  and  when  is  this 
unique  and  mutual  knowledge  to  be  regarded  as 
obtained  ?  Clearly  it  is  no  empirical  guessing  ;  it  does 
not  appear  possible  that  it  should  be  grounded  on 
anything  short  of  an  essential  unity. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Synoptic  saying  is 
authentic'-,  no  stress  can  be  laid   upon  the  fact  that 

'  There  is  a  strong  consensus  on  the  reading  of  the  passage,  but  not 

this  point.    Cf.  Holtzmann,  Synopt.  its  originality.     '  To  deny  this,  he 

I'.vangelien,  p.  184.     Ewald,  Evan-  thinks,   is  an  act  of  violence  than 

f^elien,    pp.    20,    255.    Weizsiicker,  which  none  can  be  greater '  (,:^<S8). 

pp    166-169.  He  interprets  the  sense  as  a  claim 

''  Dr.  Keim  contests  (ii.  379  foil.)  to  the  possession  of  '  the  highest 


St.  John  V. 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


St.  John  V. 


it  stands  alone.  The  isolation  is  in  language  rather 
than  in  idea.  We  may  quite  safely  assume  that  there 
were  other  sayings  of  similar  purport.  The  point 
really  proved  is  the  fragmentariness  of  the  Synoptic 
tradition.  With  all  its  richness  it  is  after  all  only  '  the 
crumbs  from  the  rich  man's  table.'  And  we  must  be 
prepared  to  find  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  equally 
authentic  matter  that  has  no  place  in  it. 

In  section  y,  ver.  22,  '  For  the  Father  judgeth  no 
man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son,' 
corresponds  almost  exactly  to  the  first  clause  in  the 
verse  just  quoted  from  St.  Matthew,  'All  things  are 
delivered  unto  Me  of  My  Father ;'  and  to  Matt,  xxviii. 
18,  'All  power  is  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth  \'  Ver.  23  =  Matt.  x.  40,  '  He  that  receiveth  you, 
receiveth  Me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth  Me  receiveth  Him 
that  sent  Me.'  The  form  of  a  great  part  of  this  sec- 
tion is  Johannean.  This  appears  to  be  proved  by 
the  intricacy  of  the  thought ;  the  parenthetic  character 
of  verses  22  and  23  ;  and  the  want  of  a  clear  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  spiritual  resuscitation  of  the 
spiritually  dead,  the  miraculous  raising  of  the  physically 
dead,  and  the  general  resurrection  at  the  last  day. 
But  the  conception  of '  eternal  life,'  '  everlasting  life,' 
is  a  common  one  with  the  Synoptists :  and  with  them 


knowledge  of  God  and  of  perfect 
beatific  life  in  God  *  {?.^\) — resting 
upon  '  likeness  of  spiritual  activity, 
upon  likeness  of  natures,  of  being  ' 
(auf  der  Gleichheit  geistiger  Thii- 
tigkeit,  auf  der  Gleichheit  des 
Wesens,  der  Naturen,  p.  3S2V  Yet 
he  seems  to  tVink  that  this  lan- 
guage is  tenable  along  with  a 
strictly  humanitarian  view  of  the 
Person  of  Christ.    It  is  much  to  be 


desired  that  Dr.  Keim  and  writers 
who  hold  the  same  standpoint, 
would  abjure  metaphor,  and  express 
their  meaning  in  precise  terms. 
Dr.  Schenkel  is  a  great  offender  in 
this  respect 

^  This  verse  is  referred  by  Holtz- 
mann  to  the  other  great  document 
A.  the  '  Ur-Marcus,'  p.  99.  Cf. 
also  Ewald,  pp.  59,  364,  365. 


VI.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


too  the  mean  by  which  it  is  to  be  obtained,  is  by 
contracting  a  personal  relation  to  Jesus.  'Come  unto 
Me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest,'  is  the  simpler  and  more  metaphorical 
expression  for  that  which  is  expounded  in  these 
verses  ;  but  its  meaning  is  really  not  less  profound. 

The  command  addressed  to  the  too  lukewarm  dis- 
ciple, '  Follow  Me,  and  let  the  dead  bury  their  dead,' 
shows  that  this  imagery  of  life  and  death  in  especial 
connection  with  the  relation  to  His  own  Person,  was 
not  foreign  to  the  original  sayings  of  Jesus  (Matt.  viii. 

2.2). 

Though  the  life-giving  power  of  the  Son  is  meant 
chiefly  in  an  ethical  or  spiritual  sense,  there  is  an 
undercurrent  of  allusion,  even  in  these  earlier  verses, 
to  the  miraculous  acts  like  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
daughter,  or  the  widow's  son  at  Nain.  This,  too,  is 
in  accordance  with  the  intention  of  our  Lord,  whose 
miracles  have  all  of  them  a  typical  value  ^. 

6.  The  description  of  the  final  resurrection,  and  the 
Last  Judgment,  is  entirely  in  the  manner  of  the  Sy- 
noptists,  and  shows  that  the  theology  of  St.  John  was 
essentially  at  one  with  theirs,  on  a  point  where  some 
critics,  overlooking  this  passage,  have  asserted  the 
contrary.  The  two  doctrines  of  everlasting  life  spiri- 
tually revealed  in  the  present,  and  of  everlasting  life 
conferred  at  the  resurrection  of  the  just  in  the  future, 
exist  side  by  side,  not  only  in  St.  John  and  in  St.  Paul, 
but  also  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  without  coming  into 
conflict  with  each  other.  This  is  seen,  for  the  Sy- 
noptists,  by  comparing  Matt.  xix.  i6  foil,  and  Luke 

'  See  p.  130  below. 


St.  John.  V. 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


St.  John  V. 


X.  25  foil.  (esp.  ver.  28,  'thou  shalt  live' =  ' inherit  eter- 
nal life')  with  Matt.  xxv.  46. 

e.  Ver.  30.  '  I  seek  not  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the  Father  which  sent  Me '  =  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  'Ne- 
vertheless, not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt.'  The  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  submission  of  the  Son  to  the  Father 
as  the  ground  of  His  exaltation,  is  thoroughly  Apo- 
stolic \  Its  wide  diffusion  would  tend  to  make  us  sup- 
pose that  it  is  pre-Apostolic  in  its  origin  ;  at  least, 
that  it  is  based  on  intimations  that  had  been  given 
by  our  Lord  during  His  lifetime. 

In  the  second  half  of  the  discourse  the  form  is 
again  in  a  great  degree  peculiar  to  St.  John.  But, 
when  we  come  to  look  beneath  the  form,  there  are 
numerous  points  of  affinity  with  the  Synoptists,  or 
rather,  a  broad  substratum  of  unity.  The  one  point 
on  which  this  would  seem  to  be  most  wanting  is  in  C, 
the  claim  to  a  higher  witness  than  that  of  John,  by 
comparison  with  and  to  some  extent  in  depreciation 
of  it.  If  we  suppose  the  author  of  the  Gospel  to  be 
the  Apostle,  it  is  only  natural  that  he  should  insist 
upon  the  transcendent  authority  by  which  his  Gospel 
was  sealed.  But  it  would  seem  that  here,  as  else- 
where, he  has  penetrated  a  degree  beyond  the  fact. 
The  Father  bore  witness  to  the  Son  through  the 
miracles,  which  He  wrought  in  the  Divine  Spirit  and 
with  the  Divine  co-operation.  In  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  our  Lord  appeals  to  these  miracles.  In  St. 
John  He  is  made  to  appeal  immediately  to  that 
of  which  the  miracles  were  the  outward  sign  and 
manifestation. 

'  Cf.  Phil.  ii.  9 ;  Heb.  v.  8,  9 ;  x.  7  foil. ;  Acts  ii.  33. 


.'I.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BE7HESDA. 


113 


Then  again,  in  ?/,  Ipya  has  a  wider  signification  than 
the  8Di'a/ieis  of  Matt.  xi.  20,  21  (Luke  x.  13,  foil.)  It 
includes  not  only  the  visible  miracles,  but  also  that 
which  is  inferred  through  those  miracles,  all  Messi- 
anic powers  and  functions. 

Q.  The  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  is  essentially  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Synoptists  (cf.  Luke  xxiv.  26,  27,  44-46  ; 
Matt.  xxvi.  54,  ver.  17,  &c.)  And  so  is  the  contrast 
drawn  between  the  advantages  and  opportunities 
which  the  Jews  really  possessed,  and  the  blindness 
which  prevented  them  from  making  use  of  them, 
which  may  be  compared  with  the  adaptation  of  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  in  Matt.  xiii.  14-17- 

I.  The  ethical  cause  assigned  for  the  Jews'  unbelief 
has  a  parallel  in  the  same  passage :  '  This  people's 
heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hear- 
ing, and  their  eyes  they  have  closed,  lest  at  any  time 
they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their 
ears,  and  should  understand  with  their  heart,  and 
should  be  converted,  and  I  should  heal  them '  (Matt, 
xiii.  15).  A  like  ethical  disqualification  is  implied  in 
the  phrase  which  occurs  so  often,  'A  wicked  and 
adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign,'  &c.  We 
have  an  exact  parallel  to  the  particular  impediment 
alleged  in  ver.  44 :  '  How  can  ye  believe,  which 
receive  honour  one  of  another,'  &c.  In  Matt,  xviii. 
1-4,  where,  in  answer  to  the  question,  'Who  should 
be  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'"  the  dis- 
ciples are  told  that  no  man  should  enter  there  at 
all,  who  did  not  first  humble  himself,  and  become  as 
a  little  child. 

K.  The  declaration  of  the  sufficiency  of  Moses  and 
his  writings,  reminds  us  at  once  of  Luke  xvi.  29,  31, 

I 


St.  John  V. 


114 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


[chap. 


St.  John  V. 


'  If  they  will  not  believe  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead.' 

It  is  not  impossible  that  in  some  of  these  cases,  the 
saying  quoted  from  the  Synoptists  may  have  been 
actually  the  original  which  appears  thus  metamor- 
phosed in  St,  John.  What  is  here  presented  as  a 
single  discourse  is  probably  made  up  of  the  fragments 
of  several  fused  together  and  transmuted  in  the  mind 
and  memory  of  the  Apostle.  But  with  all  this  out- 
ward individuality  of  form,  we  have  seen  how  closely 
the  substance  is  allied  with  that  of  the  Synoptists, 
and  what  a  large  proportion  of  the  constituent  ele- 
ments can  claim  an  authentic  and  objective  reality. 
At  the  same  time,  it  becomes  clear  how  erroneous 
is  that  view,  which  detaches  the  Johannean  theology 
from  its  true  Apostolic  surroundings,  and  correlates 
it  with  a  system  of  thought,  to  which  it  has  only  a 
superficial  resemblance,  and  its  differences  from  which 
are  profound.  What  Gnostic  in  the  second  century 
would  have  cared  to  discuss  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  to  discuss  it  upon  these  grounds,  as  overborne  by 
a  higher  relation  and  a  higher  obligation }  What 
Gnostic  would  have  stayed  to  contrast  the  evidence 
of  miracles  with  the  oral  testimony  of  John  }  What 
Gnostic  would  so  have  probed  to  the  quick  the  moral 
hindrances  to  the  reception  of  truth }  How  many 
clear  parallels  to  Johannean  dicta  can  be  quoted  from 
Gnostics  or  Gnosticising  writers  ?  Set  these  by  the 
side  of  those  which  present  themselves  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  real  affinities  of  the 
Johannean  theology  will  soon  become  evident. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  has  not  only,  as  we  have 


VI.] 


THE  MIRACLE  AT  BETHESDA. 


"5 


seen,  led  to  mistaken  conclusions  in  itself,  but  it  has 
also,  from  its  mere  position  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel,  given  a  bias  to  the  critical  verdict  that  has 
led  to  the  neglect  of  indications  far  more  numerous 
and  certain. 


St.  John  V. 


1  2 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE   MULTIPLICATION    OF  THE    LOAVES,   AND   THE 
DISCOURSE   AT  CAPERNAUM. 


St.  John  vi. 

The  Chron- 
ology. 


IF  we  take  the  feast  of  chap.  v.  to  be  the  feast  of 
Purim,  the  events  of  chap.  vi.  will  then  happen 
within  a  month  of  it.  But  the  Purim  hypothesis, 
though  perhaps  on  the  whole  probable,  is  not  without 
difficulties.  We  must  beware  of  laying  too  much 
stress  on  the  chronology.  I  fear  Dr.  Wieseler's  labours, 
valuable  and  admirable  as  they  are,  have  hardly  given 
us  so  certain  a  result  as  he  seems  to  think.  One  point 
I  believe  he  has  made  out  to  a  very  high  degree  of 
probability ;  that  is,  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the 
single  date  for  which  we  have  positive  data  in  the 
Gospels — that  of  the  public  appearance  of  the  Baptist, 
and  along  with  it  the  first  Passover  of  our  Lord,  after 
His  baptism.  This,  I  think,  we  may  safely  fix  at  the 
year  28  A.D.  But  with  this  exception,  I  doubt  whe- 
ther we  can  rise  above  the  region  of  more  or  less 
probable  conjecture.  I  firmly  believe  that  the  Johan- 
nean  chronology  is  to  be  trusted,  so  far  as  it  goes ; 
but  there  are  several  points  in  it  that  cannot  be  pre- 
cisely determined  ;  of  which  this  is  one.  With  regard 
to  the  closing  scene,  too,  I  cannot  think  that  Dr.  Wie- 
seler's system  is  satisfactory.  His  view  as  to  the  date 
of  the  Last  Supper  is  based  upon  harmonistic  inter- 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


pretations,  with  which  I  cannot  agree ;  and  is  really- 
less  consistent  with  the  astronomical  data  than  that 
to  which  it  is  opposed '. 

With  the  beginning  of  chap.  vi.  the  scene  shifts 
suddenly  from  Judaea  to  Galilee.  The  time  is  fixed 
by  ver.  4.  as  near  the  Passover  (i.  e.  probably  that  of 
the  year  29).  But  nothing  whatever  is  said  about  the 
circumstances  of  the  journey  northwards,  or  of  the 
rest  of  the  series  of  events  which  connect  the  two 
portions  of  the  narrative  together.  The  whole  of  the 
interval  from  ver.  18,  where  we  were  left  in  Judaea, 
at  the  feast  of  Purim,  to  chap.  vi.  i,  where  the  narra- 
tive takes  us  across  the  sea  of  Galilee,  just  before  the 
Passover,  is  left  entirely  blank.  Ewald  thinks  that 
something  must  have  fallen  out  - ;  but  there  is  not  the 
slightest  documentary  evidence  for  such  a  supposition ; 
and  really  the  abrupt  transition  is  only  in  accordance 
with  the  practice  of  the  Evangelist.  It  brings  out 
clearly  the  eclecticism  of  his  narrative, — which  does 
not  profess  to  be  continuous,  but,  while  it  treats  the 
particular  sections  selected  with  great  minuteness  of 


'  Nisan  i,  or  the  first  day  of  the 
Jewish  year,  coincided  with  the 
(appearance  of  the  disc  of  the)  first 
new  moon  after  the  spring  equinox. 
This  can  be  determined  astro- 
nomically; and  two  astronomers, 
Wurm  and  Oudemans,  working  out 
the  calculation  independently,  have 
arrived  at  results  which  only  vary 
by  a  few  minutes.  In  accordance 
with  these,  tables  have  been  drawn 
up  for  the  years  on  each  side  of 
30  A.D. ;  from  which  it  appears  that 
the  year  30  itself  is  the  very  one  in 
which  Nisan  14th  fell  upon  a 
Friday,  so  satisfying  the  conditions 
of   the   problem.     Wieseler,   who 


holds  that  the  Last  Supper  took 
place  on  Nisan  14th  and  the  Cru- 
cifixion on  Nisan  15th,  supported 
his  view  by  an  appeal  to  these 
astronomical  data :  but  he  appa- 
rently forgot,  in  fixing  Nisan  i,  to 
allow  for  the  fact  of  the  Jewish 
day  beginning  in  the  evening.  It 
seems  that  the  exact  date  of  the 
Crucifixion  may  be  set  down  with 
some  confidence  as  the  afternoon 
of  April  7th  in  the  year  30  a.d. 
Cf.  Caspari,  pp.  7-17  ;  Ellicott,  p. 
323  n.  Dr.  \Vieseler,  however,  still 
maintains  his  position.  {Beilrdge, 
p.  162.) 

^  Jobann.  Scbriften,  p.  221. 


St.  John  vi. 


The  change 
of  scene. 


The  subjects 
of  the  narra- 
tiveselected, 
not  con- 
tinuous. 


ii8 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES.      [cHAP. 


detail,  leaves  the  links  of  connection  between  them 
wholly  vague  and  indefinite.  We  had  an  instance  of 
this  at  the  beginning  of  chap,  v  ;  again  in  chap.  vii.  i  ; 
so  too  in  X.  22  and  xii.  i.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to 
look  for  any  far-fetched  motives  for  this.  Probably 
the  simple  reason  was,  that  the  Evangelist  found  it 
necessary  in  order  to  keep  his  book  within  a  reason- 
able compass,  either  to  abridge  the  whole  narrative, 
or  to  give  only  parts  of  it ;  and  of  these  alternatives 
he  chose  the  latter.  The  principle  of  selection  pur- 
sued we  can  hardly  determine.  The  motives  of 
literary  procedure,  like  those  of  all  action,  are  highly 
complex,  and  often  beyond  the  power  even  of  the 
writer  himself  wholly  to  analyse.  Much  of  the  matter 
contained  in  the  fourth  Gospel  may  have  been  selected 
unconsciously,  merely  because  it  happened  to  come 
uppermost  in  the  author's  mind.  Doubtless  there 
would  be  at  the  bottom  of  this  some  subtle  train  or 
trains  of  association ;  but  we  are  not  in  a  position 
completely  to  unravel  them.  The  main  element  prob- 
ably was  the  desire  to  choose  out  those  passages 
which  tended  most  to  exalt  the  subject  of  the  history, 
and  to  show  Him  in  His  supernatural  power  and 
glory.  Another  may  have  been  the  intention  to 
furnish  a  historical  supplement  to  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, bringing  out  especially  those  parts  of  the  narra- 
tive, like  the  Judaean  ministry,  where  they  were  most 
deficient.  Some  polemical  motives  may  have  entered 
in  ;  but  these  at  all  events  lie  very  much  in  the  back- 
ground. Unconsciously  such  motives  would  operate 
to  a  greater  or  less  degree ;  but  consciously  the 
Evangelist  seems  to  have  felt  that  both  himself  and 
his  subject  were  above  polemics.     He  may  have  had 


.II.] 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


119 


besides  some  such  minor  objects  as  those  suggested 
by  Ewald  ;  (i.)  to  bring  out  the  luiivcrsalism  of  our 
Lord's  teaching ;  (ii.)  to  meet  the  charge  of  obscurity- 
brought  against  the  new  faith,  by  laying  stress  upon 
the  rank  and  estimation  of  the  first  converts,  e.  g. 
Nicodemus,  and  by  showing  that  Christianity  did  not 
originate  in  a  corner  of  GaHlee ;  (iii,)  to  confront  the 
disciples  of  the  Baptist,  &c.  All  these,  as  well  as 
other  motives  and  objects,  may  have  been  present  to 
the  writer  in  different  degrees.  But  we  must  beware 
of  thinking  that  we  can  exhaust  them.  In  order  even 
to  guess  at  the  whole  of  such  motives,  we  should  have 
to  know  much  more  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  Gospel  was  written,  than  we  do.  And  then  we 
should  be  very  liable  to  be  mistaken;  so  rich  is  human 
nature  ;  so  active,  so  sensitive,  so  mobile  is  the  human 
mind. 

The  section  before  us  does  certainly  tend  to  bring 
out  the  Divine  Majesty  of  our  Lord  in  a  remarkable 
way,  and  the  discourse  which  follows  in  the  synagogue 
at  Capernaum  turns  upon  a  special  subject  with  our 
Evangelist,  the  mystical  relation  of  the  Redeemer  to 
His  people.  From  a  critical  point  of  view  the  history 
of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  and  the  storm  at 
sea  are  important ;  because  here  we  have  a  full  and 
undoubted  synopsis  of  all  four  Gospels.  The  first 
three  here  depend  upon  a  single  document,  which  is 
found  in  its  most  original  form  in  St.  Mark.  This 
document  supplied  the  common  groundwork  of  the 
whole  Synoptic  tradition,  and  competes  with  the 
'  collection  of  discourses,'  to  which  we  have  already 

'  Jobann.  Schrifien,  pp.  8-13. 


St.  John  vi 


Critical  im- 
portance of 
the  feeding 
of  the  five 
thousand. 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES.      [cHAP. 


alluded,   for   the   place   of   the    oldest   document   of 
Christian  history  \ 

There  is  some  little  difficulty  about  the  circum- 
stances which  precede  the  miracle.  These  are  clearly 
described  by  the  Synoptists.  According  to  them,  the 
Apostles  have  just  returned  from  their  mission  ;  and 
our  Lord,  who  is  now  on  the  west  side  of  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  probably  somewhere  near  Capernaum,  find- 
ing that  the  crowds  will  not  permit  any  degree  of 
privacy,  enters  into  a  ship  with  His  disciples,  and 
crosses  over  to  the  other  side.  But  the  crowd,  ob- 
serving what  was  done,  hastens  round  by  land, 
gathering  contingents  as  it  goes  from  the  cities  along 
the  coast,  and  arrives  at  the  place  where  our  Lord 
and  the  Apostles  had  landed  not  long  after  them. 
This  is  not  impossible  ;  for  supposing  the  desert  place 
and  the  hill  on  which  Jesus  sate  to  be,  as  St.  Luke 
says,  in  the  district  of  Bethsaida  (that  is,  Bethsaida 
Julias  on  the  north  -  east  shore  of  the  lake),  the 
distance  from  Capernaum  would  not  be  above  ten 
miles.  The  account  in  St.  John  is  briefer  and  less 
detailed  than  that  in  the  Synoptists  :  and  to  the 
end  of  ver.  3  it  seems  to  agree  with  it  very  fairly. 
'After  these  things  Jesus  went  over  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
which  is  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  And  a  great  multitude 
followed  Him,  because  of  His  miracles  which  He  did 
on  them  that  were  diseased.  And  Jesus  went  up  into 
a  mountain  {to  opos,  '  qui  prope  erat,'  Meyer)  and 
there  He  sat  with  His  disciples.'  So  far  the  accounts 
seem  to  agree  well  together.  But  in  ver.  4  a  new 
reason  for  the  gathering  of  the  crowd  seems  to  be 
suggested  :  '  And  the  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews, 

1  Cf.  Holtzmann,  p.  83,  and  compare  Ewald,  Evang.  p.  72. 


VII.]        THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


was  nigh ; '  as  if  the  crowd  were  made  up,  not  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  west  shore  of  the  lake,  but 
of  the  troops  of  pilgrims  who  were  already  beginning 
to  stream  from  the  north  southwards  on  their  way 
to  the  passover  at  Jerusalem.  If  we  do  not  suppose 
this,  we  must  suppose  that  the  Evangelist  merely 
wished  to  give  a  chronological  notice  ;  and  this  appears 
to  be  the  more  probable  view  '. 

We  notice  that  the  impulse  to  the  performance  of 
the  miracle  comes  in  the  Synoptists  from  the  dis- 
ciples ;  in  St.  John,  solely  from  our  Lord  Himself. 
It  is  accordingly  assumed  by  those  who  deny  the 
Johanriean  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  that  the  miracle 
has  no  reference  to  the  bodily  needs  of  those  satisfied 
by  it,  and  that  it  is  regarded  as  purposed  from  the 
first  merely  as  a  display  of  Divine  power  ^.  This 
may  be  true;  but  there  is  no  very  decisive  ground 
for  asserting  it.  The  eTrapas  rovs  6(/)^aA/xow9  of  St. 
John  may  contain  the  idea  of  human  pity,  which  is 
more  fully  expressed  in  the  etbev  Kal  laTiXayxviaOi)  of 
the  Synoptists.  They  too  certainly  intimate  that  the 
miracle  was  purposed  from  the  first.  The  answer, 
'  Give  ye  them  to  eat,'  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
question,  '  Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these 
may  eat  ? '  For  the  rest  the  superiority  in  distinct- 
ness and  precision  is  all  on  the  side  of  St.  John. 
He  knows  to  whom  the  question  was  put,  that 
it  was  to  Philip  ;  he  knows  exactly  what  Philip 
answered  ;  and  again  the  remark  of  Andrew,  Simon 

*  Meyer,  Comm.  (pp.  250,  251),  from  the  Synoptists.     But  if  there 

insists  that  ver.  4  is  not  a  mere  is  a  discrepancy  it  is  not  with  the 

chronological  notice,  but  is  meant  Synoptists  alone,  but  with  St.  John 

to  explain  the  preceding  narrative,  himself;  see  below,  p.  126. 
He  therefore  sees  in  it  a  discrepancy         ^  Cf.  Hilgenfeld,  p.  274. 


St.  John  vi. 
1-4. 


vv.  5-13- 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES.      [cHAP. 


St.  John  vi. 
5-13- 


Peter's  brother.  The  particular  expression,  '  two 
hundred  pennyworth  of  bread,'  (Hke  the  'three  hun- 
dred pence'  of  xii.  5,)  is  probably  an  unconscious 
reminiscence  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  which  St.  John 
had  certainly  seen.  It  is  quite  possible  and  probable 
that  the  expression  may  have  been  originally  used  ; 
but  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  it  had  been 
recalled  to  the  recollection  of  the  Apostle  by  his 
having  seen  it  in  writing.  The  same  will  apply  to 
the  use  of  KO(pLvovs  for  '  baskets '  in  ver.  1 3  below. 
Here,  again,  there  is  a  verbal  coincidence  both  with 
St.  Mark  and  the  other  Synoptists.  In  the  account 
of  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  (nrvpibas  is  the 
word  used  ^.  On  the  other  hand,  the  touch  in  ver. 
10,  'Now  there  was  much  grass  in  the  place,'  com- 
pared with  '  on  the  green  grass '  in  Mark  vi.  40,  has 
all  the  force  of  an  original,  if  not  altogether  inde- 
pendent, reminiscence.  At  least  it  would  hardly  have 
been  suggested  by  the  parallel  phrase,  unless  the 
fact  had  already  been  impressed  upon  the  Apostle's 
memory.  If  such  were  the  case,  the  Synoptic  tra- 
dition may  have  helped  to  revive  it.  But  a  first  or 
second  century  forger  would  not  have  had  the  art 
to  choose  a  trait  like  this  to  develope  as  the  Evan- 
gelist has  done.  It  is  far  more  probably  a  genuine 
part  of  a  picture  actually  presented  to  the  Apostle's 
mind.  Some  memories  are  essentially  pictorial ;  and 
the  Apostle's  appears  to  have  been  one  of  these.  It 
is  wonderful  with  what  precision  every  stroke  is  thrown 


^  With  Mr.  Blunt  this  becomes  ment,  and  Ko<pivovs   only  in   two, 

an  '  undesigned  coincidence.'     But  that  which  has  been  used  by  the 

it  must  be  remembered  that  really  three  Synoptists  and  St.  John.   (Cf. 

anvpidas  is  only  found  in  one  docu-  Scriptural  Coincidences,  p.  264.) 


VII.]        THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


123 


in.  Most  minds  would  become  confused  in  repro- 
ducing events  that  had  occurred  so  long  ago ;  but 
there  is  no  confusion  here.  The  whole  scene  could 
be  transferred  to  canvas  without  any  difficulty. 

We  notice  besides  the  prominence  that  is  given  to 
the  two  figures  Philip  and  Andrew,  and  besides  the 
abundance  of  grass,  the  -naihapiov  %v,  with  an  emphasis 
as  it  were  upon  the  number,  who  supplies  the  fishes 
and  the  loaves ;  the  very  loaves  are  particularised  as 
of  barley,  aprovs  KptOivov^. 

But  a  decisive  proof  that  the  narrative  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  not  merely  constructed  out  of  that  of  the 
Synoptists,  and  we  might  almost  add  a  decisive  proof 
of  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospel  itself,  is  sup- 
plied by  the  two  concluding  verses,  '  Then  those  men, 
when  they  had  seen  the  miracle  that  Jesus  did,  said, 
This  is  of  a  truth  that  prophet  that  should  come  into 
the  world.  When  Jesus  therefore  perceived  that  they 
would  come  by  force  to  make  Him  a  king.  He  de- 
parted again  into  a  mountain  Himself  alone.'  The 
Synoptists  have  nothing  of  this.  They  pass  imme- 
diately from  the  miracle  to  the  embarcation  of  the 
disciples.  Yet  how  exactly  it  corresponds  with  the 
nature  of  the  current  Messianic  expectations  !  Our 
Lord  had  performed  a  miracle,  a  o-jj/^etof  of  His 
divine  mission ;  and  at  once  He  is  hailed  as  the 
Messiah.  But  it  is  as  the  Jewish,  not  the  Christian, 
Messiah.  The  multitude  would  take  Him  by  force 
and  make  Him  king.  At  last  they  think  they  have 
found  the  leader  who  will  head  them  victoriously 
against  the  Romans  and  '  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel.'  And  just  because  He  refused  to  do  this,  we 
are  told  a  few  verses  lower  down  that  many  of  His 


St.  John  vi. 
5-I3. 


vv.  14,  15. 


124 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES.      [cHAP. 


St.  John  vi. 
H,  15- 


disciples  'went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with  Him  ;' 
and  for  the  same  cause,  a  year  later,  they  crucified 
Him.  It  is  this  contrast  between  the  popular  Mes- 
sianic belief  and  the  sublimated  form  of  it,  as  main- 
tained and  represented  by  Christ,  that  is  the  clue 
to  all  the  fluctuations  and  oscillations  to  which  the 
belief  in  Him  was  subject.  This  is  why  He  was 
confessed  one  day  and  denied  the  next ;  because  men 
found  that  the  hopes  which  had  been  roused  in  them 
were  disappointed,  and  that  the  Son  of  Man,  though 
He  would  preach  and  heal,  yet  would  not  bring  them 
the  deliverance  or  the  glories  which  they  desired. 
For  a  time  they  bore  with  it ;  but  at  last,  impatient 
of  constant  disappointment,  and  incensed  against 
claims  which  did  not  offer  the  expected  justification, 
they  rejected  their  proper  King  for  one  more  after 
their  mind,  who  at  least  redeemed  the  crime  of  bri- 
gandage by  the  virtue  of  active  sedition. 

It  is  almost  superfluous  to  point  out  how  difficult, 
how  impossible  it  would  have  been  for  a  writer  wholly 
ab  extra  to  throw  himself  into  the  midst  of  these  hopes 
and  feelings,  and  to  reproduce  them,  not  as  if  they 
were  something  new  that  he  had  learned,  but  as  part 
of  an  atmosphere  that  he  had  himself  once  breathed. 
There  is  no  stronger  proof  both  of  the  genuineness 
and  of  the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  Gospel  than  the 
way  in  which  it  reflects  the  current  Messianic  idea  ^ 
It  is  only  surprising  how,  with  such  phenomena 
before  them,  critics  could  have  been  found  to  place 
the  composition  of  it  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  to  explain  it  by  an  impossible  combi- 

'  The  subject  of  the  Messianic  idea  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is  espe- 
cially well  worked  out  by  Weizsacker,  pp.  260-262. 


VII.]       THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


125 


nation  of  orthodoxies  and  heterodoxies,  when  the  true 
and  simple  sokition  lay  so  near  at  hand. 

The  disciples  embark,  and  Jesus  retires  alone  to 
pray.  Soon  after  dark  a  storm  arises.  The  disciples 
had  rowed  about  five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs, 
when  they  sec  their  Master  walking  upon  the  water 
towards  them.  At  first  they  are  afraid  ;  but  He 
calms  their  fears,  and  they  receive  Him  into  the 
ship,  which  at  once  reaches  land. 

This  account  Is  much  abridged  from  the  Synoptists. 
The  episode  of  Peter  attempting  to  walk  upon  the 
water  is  omitted  altogether.  But  the  'five  and  twenty 
or  thirty  furlongs '  betrays  the  eye-witness,  and  agrees 
sufficiently  with  the  Synoptic  '  midst  of  the  sea,' 
which  Josephus  says  was  forty  stadia  across'.  I 
hardly  see  the  necessity,  with  Liicke  and  Meyer^, 
to  press  yOfXov  XafSelv  into  opposition  to  the  Synop- 
tists, as  though  Jesus  were  not  actually  received  into 
the  ship.  The  stress  is  really  on  the  willingness  of 
the  disciples.  '  Before  they  shrank  back  through  fear, 
but  now  they  were  glad  to  receive  Him.'  The  sudden 
bringing  of  the  ship  to  land  we  are  tempted  to  explain 
psychologically.  The  Apostle,  intent  upon  the  mar- 
vellous occurrence  and  occupied  with  his  own  devout 
conclusions  (cf.  Matt.  xiv.  33  ?),  would  not  notice  the 
motion  of  the  ship  ;  and,  a  favourable  breeze  arising, 
it  might  easily  be  at  the  land  before  he  was  aware. 
At  least  this  may  serve  as  a  conjecture.  Those  who 
accept  miracles  because  they  are  compelled  to  do  so 
both  by  the  quality  and  the  amount  of  the  evidence 
for  them,  will  of  course  allow  that  the  whole  may  be 
miraculous ;  but  they  will  notice  such  features  as  can 

1  B.  y.  iii.  10.  7.  ^  Comni.,  ad  he. 


St.  John  vi. 
14,  15- 

vv.  16-21. 


126 


THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES.        [cHAP. 


St.  John  vi. 
16-21. 


vv.  22-24. 


be  reasonably  explained  otherwise.  Those  who  look 
upon  the  question  of  miracles  as  foreclosed  on  a  priori 
grounds,  cut  the  knot  for  themselves  easily  enough  in 
one  way;  but  in  another  they  are  compelled  to  violate 
all  the  canons  of  historical  evidence,  or  else  to  fall 
back  upon  rationalizing  expedients  that  are  consider- 
ably more  incredible  than  miracles  \ 

The  verses  which  follow,  22-24,  describing  the 
transit  of  a  part  at  least  of  the  crowd  from  the  east 
to  the  west  bank  on  the  next  day,  betray  a  certain 
literary  awkwardness,  but  great  historical  accuracy. 
The  position  described  by  the  Evangelist  is  this. 
The  people  had  seen  on  the  day  before  that  there 
was  only  one  ship  drawn  up  on  the  beach — that  in 
which  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  had  crossed  over. 
This,  we  may  remark  in  passing,  confirms  the  state- 
ment of  the  Synoptists  that  the  people  themselves 
had  come  round  by  land,  just  as  the  fact  that  they 


^  Such  for  instance  is  the  older 
mode  of  explaining  the  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand  : — The  demand 
for  food  had  been  foreseen  and 
secretly  provided  for;  bread  had 
been  brought  over  and  was  kept 
concealed  in  the  boat.  Less  coarse, 
but  not  very  much  less  improbable, 
is  the  explanation  that  survives  in 
Keim,  ii.  494,  495.  The  multitude 
had  brought  provisions  with  them 
which  they  are  persuaded,  by  ex- 
ample and  precept,  to  divide.  Weiz- 
sacker  (p.  449)  regards  the  history 
as  an  embodiment  of  the  sentences 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ; 
'  Take  no  thought  for  this  life,'  and 
'  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
This  writer,  however,  firmly  holds 
to  the  '  Pragmatismus'  of  the  rest 
of  the  Johannean  narrative,  espe- 
cially w.  14,  18,  30.  Dr.  Keim 
describes  the  miracle  as  '  the  greatest 


and  best  attested  of  all  those  that 
affect  external  nature.'  I  cannot 
quite  understand  the  grounds  on 
which  Dr.  Weizsacker  draws  the 
line  of  credibility  at  the  point  where 
the  process  of  the  miracle  ceases  to 
be  capable  of  dtscription  (p.  445). 
This  is  surely  a  very  accidental 
circumstance.  It  seems  to  me  im- 
possible to  carry  out  this  eclectic 
method  of  picking  out  just  the 
difficulties — to  be  tortured  to  death 
in  some  way  or  other — and  leaving 
the  narrative  on  each  side  of  them 
untouched.  I  feel  compelled  to  be- 
lieve in  the  tnith  of  the  general  nar- 
rative— because  of  its  consistency, 
Because  of  its  marvellous  and  trans- 
cendant  originality,  because  of  the 
utter  impossibility  to  account  for  it 
either  by  conscious  or  unconscious 
invention  ;  and  the  difficulties  must 
be  accepted  in  its  train. 


vn.]       THE  MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  LOAVES. 


127 


are  now  ready  to  cross  the  sea  tends  to  show  that 
they  were  not,  at  least  that  part  of  them,  on  the  way 
to  the  passover  at  Jerusalem.  They  see  that  this 
single  ship  has  disappeared,  that  Jesus  and  His  dis- 
ciples also  are  gone,  and  they  prepare  to  follow  them. 
Presently  other  boats  arrive  from  Tiberias — perhaps, 
as  Mr.  Blunt  suggests  \  driven  across  by  the  gale 
which  was  '  contrary'  to  the  Apostles'  rowing  towards 
Capernaum.  They  enter  into  these,  and  so  cross  over 
to  the  west  side. 

The  structure  of  the  sentence  is  somewhat  com- 
plicated by  the  parenthesis  of  ver.  23.  But  there  is 
no  argument  in  this  against  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ments which  it  contains^  On  the  contrary,  if  these 
had  been  fictitious,  we  may  be  sure  that  they 
would  have  been  much  simpler.  Indeed  a  forger 
would  never  have  thought  of  relating  how  the  crowd 
got  across  the  sea  at  all.  We  see  the  natural  par- 
tiality with  which  the  Evangelist  dwells  upon  scenes 
with  which  he  was  so  familiar.  He  had  been  a  fisher- 
man on  the  sea  of  Galilee  himself.  He  knew  the 
boats  of  Tiberias  from  those  of  Capernaum  and  the 
other  cities,  and  had  probably  friends  or  relations  in 
that  very  crowd. 

Our  Lord  is  found  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum, 
and  there  to  a  mixed  audience,  partly  composed  of 
those  who  had  been  present  at  the  miracle,  and  partly 
of  the  more  hostile  section  represented  by  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  he  delivers  the  discourse  which  oc- 
cupies   the    next    thirty-three   verses    of    the    sixth 


s.  c.  p.  292. 


''■  Cf.  Strauss,  Neues  Leben  Jesu,  p.  496. 


St.  John  vi. 
22-24. 


St.  John  vi. 

25-71. 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [cHAP. 


St.  John  vi. 
25-71- 


Marks  of  a 
subjective 
element  in 
the  dis- 
course. 

Recurrent 
forms. 


chapter.  As  in  so  many  of  the  Johannean  discourses, 
the  thought  is  rather  stationary  than  progressive  ;  but 
yet  there  is  a  certain  development,  which  we  may 
indicate  perhaps  by  marking  off  three  main  divisions  : 
one  including  ver.  26-34  ;  another  extending  from 
ver.  35  to  ver.  50 ;  and  the  third  beginning  with 
ver.  5 1  to  the  end  of  the  discourse.  In  the  second 
of  these  divisions  there  will  be  two  long  parentheses, 
from  ver.  37  to  40  inclusive,  and  from  ver.  43  to  46  in- 
clusive. These  have  a  separate  subject,  divine  grace 
as  the  source  of  faith ;  and  it  will  be  best  to  take 
them  by  themselves.  The  subject  of  the  rest  of  the 
discourse  is  the  'Bread  of  Life:'  and  following  our 
divisions,  we  may  say  that  a.  contains  the  distinction 
between  the  material  bread  and  the  spiritual  bread, 
ver.  26-34 ;  yS.  the  identification  of  the  spiritual  bread 
with  the  Person  of  Christ  Himself,  ver.  35-50 ;  y.  the 
further  definition  of  it  as  residing  not  merely  in  the 
Person  of  Christ,  but  specifically  in  His  Death,  in  the 
giving  of  His  Body  and  the  outpouring  of  His  Blood, 
which  are  to  be   appropriated  by  the   believer,  ver. 

51-58. 

Now  in  the  first  place  we  must  notice,  that  this 
very  characteristic  of  the  discourse,  its  slow  progres- 
sion and  continual  recurrence  to  the  same  point, 
stamps  it  as  at  least  deeply  tinged  with  the  indivi- 
duality of  the  Evangelist.  There  are  a  number  of 
expressions  which  recur  almost  like  a  fixed  refrain, 
such  as  verses  39,  40,  44,  54,  '  I  will  raise  him  up  at 
the  last  day.'  Verses  '^'i^,  50,  58  are  almost  exactly 
identical.  So  again  are  verses  35,  48,  &c.  Then  not 
only  do  the  ideas  recur  within  the  discourse,  but  some 
of  them  are  also  found  almost  in  the  same  words  in 


VII.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


129 


Other  parts  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  the  Epistle.  '  He 
that  believcth  on  Me  shall  never  thirst,'  reminds  us  at 
once  of  the  discourse  with  the  Samaritan  woman, 
iv.  14,  which  is  again  almost  exactly  repeated  in 
vii.  '^'$>.  Verse  34  again  has  its  counterpart  in  the  case 
of  the  Samaritan  woman,  just  as  ver.  52  in  the  dis- 
course with  Nicodemus.  The  dialogues  in  the  Gospel 
seem  to  be  cast  to  a  great  extent  in  the  same  mould. 
They  turn  upon  the  same  contrast  between  the  true 
ideal  sense  and  the  false  literal  sense.  They  seem  to 
follow  a  fixed  rule  or  scheme,  and  not  to  reflect  the 
variety  and  many-sidedness  of  life.  From  whatever 
point  the  discussion  may  begin  it  is  sure  to  lead  up  to 
some  of  the  stereotyped  Johannean  formulae,  e.g. 
verses  36,  46,  56.  And  in  some  of  these  cases  the 
logical  connection  with  the  rest  of  the  argument  is 
exceedingly  subtle  and  remote,  quite  unlike  anything 
that  is  found  in  the  Synoptic  discourses.  This,  I 
think  we  may  say,  is  true  of  the  whole  of  the  paren- 
thetical matter  ;  but  it  is  especially  striking  in  ver.  46. 
It  has  just  been  said  that  no  one  can  come  to  Christ 
who  is  not  drawn  by  the  Father.  This  expression 
'  drawn  by  the  Father '  is  then  explained  to  mean 
'  heard  and  learnt  of  the  Father.'  But  the  Evan- 
gelist, suddenly  seeing  that  one  of  his  main  tenets 
is  verbally  at  least  endangered,  throws  in  the  saving 
clause,  '  Not  that  any  man  hath  sccii  the  Father.' 
'Drawn  by' =  ' heard  and  learnt  of,'  but  docs  not  = 
'  seen.'  That  is  a  privilege  reserved  for  a  later  stage 
in  the  spiritual  life,  and  is  only  to  be  attained 
mediately  through  the  Son  (cf.  i.  18). 

We  shall  have  little  hesitation  then  in  saying  that 
a  certain  amount  of  deduction   must  be   made  from 

K 


St.  John  vi. 
25-71- 


Digressions. 


I30 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [cHAP. 


St.  John  vi. 


vv. 26-34. 


miracles. 


this  discourse  as  representing  rather  the  words  of  the 
EvangeHst  himself  than  those  which  were  actually 
spoken.  But  how  far  is  the  deduction  to  extend  ? 
Does  it  touch  the  matter  as  well  as  the  words }  We 
can  only  answer  this  question  by  instituting  a  com- 
parison with  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  with  the 
Apostolic  writings  generally. 

a.  The  discourse  we  are  discussing  is  based  upon 
a  miracle — which  miracle  is  also  found  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  is  described  there  in  a  manner  very 
similar  to  that  in  which  it  is  described  by  St.  John. 
But  there  is  strong  reason  to  think  that  all  the  Evan- 
The  typical  gelical  miraclcs  have  a  typical  value.    It  is  this  indeed 

value  of  ,.,,..  .   1  .  .         , 

which  distmguishes  them  from  all  other  miracles 
either  before  or  since.  When  we  compare  a  saying 
like  that  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  '  Every  tree 
that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and 
cast  into  the  fire'  (Matt.  vii.  19),  first  with  the  parable 
and  then  with  the  miracle  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  we 
feel  that  we  have  before  us  only  three  different  grades 
or  kinds  of  ethical  teaching,  all  having  the  same 
object.  So  again,  when  the  casting  out  of  devils  is 
put  side  by  side  with  the  discourse  in  Matt,  xii,  22-30, 
43-45,  and  the  healing  of  the  sick  generally  with  the 
description  of  the  '  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord '  in 
Luke  iv.  1 8,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  miracles  reflect 
and  embody  the  preaching.  But  if  this  is  the  case, 
then  it  is  highly  probable  that  this  miracle,  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  has  a  meaning,  and  if 
so,  it  is  difficult  to  seek  it  elsewhere  than  in  the 
application  that  is  given  to  it  by  St,  John,  If  we 
may  assume  that  the  Gospel  miracles  have  a  typical 
value — and  there  is  only  one  so   far  as  I  am  aware 


,-zi.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAU.^r. 


(the  stater  in  the  fishes  mouth),  in  which  that  t}-pical    St.  John  vi. 

vahie  is  not  more  or  less  transparent — then  it  is  a       ' '^ 

priori  probable  that  on  some  occasion  it  would  be' 
explained.  The  Synoptists  record  no  such  expla-l 
nation,  though  they  hint  at  it  more  than  once — but' 
here  in  the  fourth  Gospel  it  is  recorded.  And  that,} 
I  think,  is  antecedently  what  we  should  have  expected.  I 

Now  lot  us  look  at  it  from  a  different  side.     We  Materialism 
saw  that   in   the  sequel   of  the   miracle    in  question, '  jg^^ish 
the   crowd   was   suddenly  fired   wdth   the   Messianic  Messjanic 
enthusiasm.     But    that    enthusiasm    was    as    yet    un- 
disciplined.    It  was  clothed  in  those  coarse  material 
forms  which  ran  through  the  whole  of  Jewish  thought 
at  this  time.     When  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in 
describing  the  glories  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  said 
that  every  vine  should  have   io,ooo  stems,  and  every 
stem  10,000  branches,  and  every  branch  10,000  shoots, 
and  every  shoot  J  0,000  bunches  of  grapes,  of  which ; 
every  bunch  would  yield  twenty-five  metretae  of  wine, ' 
he  was  but  standing  upon  the  common   level  of  hisj 
contemporaries,  and  carrying  on  into  Christianity  the  \ 
superstitions    of   later    Judaism  ^      It    is    frequently 


expecta- 
tions. 


'  Cf.  Oehler,  Art.  '  Messias'  in 
HerzofT,  i.x.  4.:^9  :  '  Es  bcginnt  dann 
fiir  das  Bundesvolk  die  Zeit  des 
grossten  irdischen  Gliicks,  das  be- 
kannllich  von  den  Rabbinen  in  der 
abenteuerlichsten  Weise  ausgemalt 
wild  ' 

'  Many  affirm  that  the  hope  of 
Israel  is,  that  Messiah  shall  come 
and  raise  the  dead  ;  and  they  shall 
be  gathered  together  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  and  shall  eat  and  drink 
and  satiate  themselves  all  the  days 
of  the  world  .  .  .  and  that  there  are 
houses  built  all  of^irecious  stones, 
beds  of  silk,  and  rivers  flowing  with 


wine  and  spicy  oil.'  Rambam  in 
Sanhedr.  c.  lo.  '  He  made  manna 
to  descend  for  them,  in  which  were 
all  manner  of  tastes,  and  eveiy 
Israelite  found  in  it  what  his  palate 
was  chiefly  pleased  with.  If  he 
desired  fat  in  it,  he  had  it.  In  it 
the  young  men  tasted  bread,  the 
old  honey,  and  the  children  oil.  .  .  . 
So  it  shall  be  in  the  world  to  come 
[the  days  of  the  Messiah]  he  shall 
give  Israel  peace,  and  they  shall  sit 
down  and  eat  in  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
and  all  nations  shall  behold  their 
condition,  as  it  is  said,  behold  my 
servants  shall  eat,  but  ye  shall  be 


^32 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


[chap. 


.  John  vi. 
26-34. 


brought  as  an  objection  against  the  fourth  Gospel 
that  it  presupposes  an  incredible  amount  of  unin- 
telligence  both  on  the  part  of  Jews  and  Samaritans, 
and  on  that  of  the  disciples.  But  those  who  bring 
this  objection  forget  the  depths  of  degraded  literalism 
to  which  the  Rabbinical  system  of  interpretation  had 
descended  ^  With  this  the  exalted  spiritualism  of, 
Christianity  could  not  but  be  in  constant  conflict 
and  collision.  A  miracle  such  as  the  multiplication 
of  the  loaves  and  fishes  could  not  fail  to  be  grossly 
misunderstood.  It  would  be  taken  at  once  as  the 
beginning  of  that  reign  of  earthly  abundance,  which 
the  prophets  were  thought  to  have  foretold.  It  was 
but  a  natural  consequence  that  the  crowd  should 
seize  upon  the  Author  of  it  and  wish  to  make  Him 
king  ;  and  again,  that  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum 
they  should  press  for  a  repetition  and  continuation  of 
these  Messianic  signs.  The  Messianic  theocracy,  it 
was  thought,  would  reflect  and  reproduce  that  of 
Moses,  not  only  in  general  outline,  but  also  in  its 
details'^.     To  this  the  Jews  point;  'Our  fathers  did 


hungry.'  Is.  Ixv.  13.  Shemoth 
Rabba,  sect.  3,  quoted  by  Light- 
foot,  Hor.  Heb.  p.  552. 

^  It  is  quite  trae  that  amongst  a 
great  deal  of  chaff  the  Talmud 
contains  many  grains  especially  of 
practical  wisdom.  But  the  instances 
quoted  by  Mr.  Deutsch  in  his  famous 
article  {Quarterly  Review,  Oct.  1867) 
do  not,  and  can  hardly  be  intended 
to,  disprove  the  statement  in  the 
text,  any  more  than  the  scepticism 
of  individual  Rabbis  like  Hillel 
disproves  the  existence  of  a  Mes- 
sianic expectation.  The  intellectual 
and  religious  condition  of  the  Jews 
at  this  time  is  well,  and,  it  would 


seem,  impartially  described  by 
Keim,i.  2oS-;o6.  Cf.  esp.  the  sec- 
tion on  the  Pharisees  pp.  251-272. 
^  '  The  later  redeemer  [i.  e.  the 
Messiah,  opposed  to  the  '  former 
redeemer,'  Moses]  shall  be  revealed 
among  them.  .  .  .  And  whither 
shall  he  lead  them  ?  Some  say  into 
the  wilderness  of  Judah.  Others 
into  the  wilderness  of  Sihon  and 
Og.  And  shall  make  manna  de- 
scend for  them.'  Midrash  Scbinn. 
16.  4.  The  former  redeemer  caused 
manna  to  descend  for  them,  in  like 
manner  shall  our  later  redeemer 
cause  manna  to  come  down,  as  it  is 
written,  There  shall  be  an  handful 


;n.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


133 


eat  manna  in  the  desert;  as  it  is  written,  He  gave 
them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat.'  And  the  first  step 
in  the  discourse  is  directed  to  the  correction  of  this 
mistake.  '  Verily,  verily  I  say  vmto  you,  Moses  gave 
you  not  that  bread  from  heaven ;  but  My  Father 
giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven.' 

It  is  remarkable  that,  while  this  discourse  is  found 
only  in  St.  John,  there  should  be  another  in  the 
Synoptists  which  represents  as  it  were  the  reverse 
side  of  the  same  subject.  Here  the  bread  of  life  is 
used  as  a  metaphor  in  a  good  sense.  There  the 
disciples  are  warned  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees  and  of  the  leaven  of  Herod  !  And  the  meta- 
phor is  there  too  misunderstood,  and  that  in  a  manner 
still  more  gross,  and  to  our  modern  ideas  seemingly 
inexplicable.  But  it  was  a  long  course  of  education 
that  the  disciples  had  to  go  through.  They  had 
almost  as  much  to  unlearn  as  they  had  to  learn.  It 
was  not  until  their  Master  had  left  them,  that  they 
discovered  really  '  what  spirit  they  were  of.'  All  His 
life  long  He  had  to  contend  with  a  dulness  and  per- 
versity of  understanding  that  was  not  peculiar  to  the 
disciples  but  was  shared  generally  by  their  country- 
men and  had  been  the  growth  of  centuries.  The 
wonder  is  less  that  the  husks  and  shells  should  still 
here  and  there  remain,  than  that  such  a  revolution  as 
was  actually  wrought  should  have  been  possible  at  all. 

The  discourse  with  the  disciples  concerning  leaven 
is  the  most  direct  parallel  to  the  Johanncan  discourse 
to  be  found  in  the  Synoptists  ;  but  there  are  others 
also   that    seem   to    lead   up   to   it.      Leaven   is  used 

of    com    in    the    earth.'     Midrasb     p.  552.     Cf.  also  Buxtorf  in  Liicke, 
Cobeleib,  86.  4,  quoted  in  Hor.  Heb.     ii.  132. 


St.  John  vi. 
26-34. 


Synoptic 
parallels. 


134 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [cHAP. 


elsewhere  as  a  simile  for  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven,'  i.  e. 
we  may  say,  either  the  spread  of  the  new  Gospel  in 
the  world,  or  its  gradual  appropriation  by  the  indi- 
vidual. But  the  appropriation  of  the  Gospel  is  almost 
another  name  for  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  Himself. 

/3,  There  is  indeed  a  slight  step  between  the  two  ; 
but  it  is  easily  taken.  And  it  depends  chiefly  upon 
the  idiosyncrasy  of  the  writer,  which  side  is  made  most 
prominent.  We  have  seen  already  that  there  are 
many  expressions  in  the  Synoptists,  which  imply  that 
Christ  required  faith  not  only  in  His  word,  but  also 
in  His  Person,  As  a  rule  these  Evangelists  give 
rather  the  popular  side  of  His  teaching,  but  this 
feature  in  it  was  too  prominent  for  them  to  ignore. 
It  is  indeed  part  and  parcel  not  of  His  teaching 
alone,  but  still  more  deeply  and  radically  of  His 
Life.  That  Life  loses  a  very  great  part  of  its  signi- 
ficance, unless  it  is  seen  that  it  is  to  be  not  only 
imitated  or  copied,  but  personally  apprehended  and 
realised  by  the  believer.  The  believer  must  become 
one  with  his  Lord,  not  by  any  outward  conformity 
but  by  an  inner  change. 

Such  language  may  sound  transcendental  and  mys- 
tical :  but  the  greater  part  of  the  Apostolic  writings 
are  saturated  with  it  through  and  through  ;  and  not 
the  Apostolic  writings  alone,  but  those  which  express 
the  highest  Christian  experience  in  all  ages.  The 
state  of  mind  intended  is  too  much  of  an  emotion  to 
be  defined  ;  and  as  an  emotion  it  is  too  complex  in 
its  character  to  be  expressed  in  a  single  word.  It  is 
blended  together  of  love,  gratitude,  admiration,  awe, 
devotion,  in  such  a  way  as  to  unite  them  all  at  once. 
And  though  we  sometimes  use  the   one  word   and 


VII.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


135 


sometimes  the  other,  still  we  feel  that  taken  alone 
they  are  the  part  and  not  the  whole.  If  this  is 
mystical  it  is  not  therefore  unreal.  There  is  a  true 
mysticism  as  well  as  a  false.  The  false  is  only  that 
which  professes  to  have  an  intuitive  insight  into  in- 
tellectual propositions,  which  do  not  in  themselves 
admit  of  proof.  No  intellectual  proposition  is  appre- 
hended intuitively ;  and  no  proposition  is  worth 
believing  which  cannot  in  some  legitimate  and  satis- 
factory way  be  proved.  But  here  the  facts  are  given 
by  the  ordinary  laws  of  historical  enquiry.  And  true 
mysticism  is  that  emotional,  spiritual,  and  we  may 
truly  add,  inspired  force,  by  which  they  are  con- 
verted out  of  the  abstract  into  the  concrete,  and 
become  an  active  moving  principle  in  daily  life.  It 
is  by  its  very  nature  sober  and  practical.  The  un- 
healthy reveries  and  nervous  excitement,  which  are 
sometimes  thought  to  stimulate,  really  stifle  it,  be- 
cause they  divorce  it  from  its  two  great  supports, 
in  reason  on  the  one  side  and  practice  on  the  other. 
The  atmosphere  in  which  it  breathes  most  freely  is 
that  which  is  most  natural,  the  calm  and  tempered 
yet  sympathetic  intercourse  of  man  with  man. 

We  cannot  call  such  Christian  mysticism  unreal  ; 
because  we  see  too  much  of  it  around  us,  and  in  spite 
of  the  countless  imperfections  of  humanity  to  which 
it  is  allied,  its  action  is  too  deep  and  too  beneficial 
to  be  numbered  among  mere  illusions.  If  this  is 
illusion,  then  we  ask  in  despair,  What  else  is  not  .-* 
To  a  strict  philosophy  indeed  '  we  arc  such  stuff  as 
dreams  are  made  of,'  '  the  world  is  a  stage,  and  men 
and  women  are  but  players.'  Or  in  more  scientific 
language,  all  knowledge  and  all  truth,  all  rightness, 


St.  John  vi. 


J 


136 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [chap. 


St.  John  vi. 
35-50. 


all  goodness,  all  reality,  is  merely  relative.  It  holds 
good  only  for  man  as  man.  What  the  absolute  value 
of  any  fact  or  emotion  may  be,  we  can  only  guess  or 
imagine,  we  cannot  know.  But  judged  by  the  sole 
standard  that  we  are  capable  of  applying,  the  Chris- 
tian emotions  are  as  real  as  anything  human.  So  long 
as  the  facts  on  which  they  rest  are  not  demonstrated 
to  be  in  their  essence  false,  so  long  as  large  masses 
of  the  most  cultivated  portion  of  mankind  are  visibly 
influenced  by  them,  so  long  as  there  is  no  competitive 
force  displaying  equal  efficacy  and  activity  over  the 
same  ground,  they  will  have  a  right  not  only  to  exist, 
but  to  govern  the  lives  and  actions  of  men. 

y.  The  third  section  of  the  discourse  presents  diffi- 
culties which  have  not  as  yet  been  raised  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  two.  The  apparent  Eucha- 
ristic  references  which  it  contains,  seem  to  Liicke  and 
Meyer,  if  they  were  true,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
Apostolic  authenticity  of  the  GospeP.  That,  I  think 
we  may  say,  is  established  for  us  by  this  time  too 
firmly  to  be  shaken.  But  I  proceed  to  offer  a  series 
of  considerations  which  may  help  to  place  the  bearing 
of  the  facts  in  a  clearer  light. 

(i.)  In  the  first  place  these  commentators  seem  to 
limit  too  narrowly  the  amount  of  deflection  from 
perfect  accuracy,  which  is  still  consistent  with  the 
testimony  being  that  of  an  eye-witness.  Words  are 
fluid  matter — much  more  so  than  visible  outward 
fact.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  they  could  lie  for 
fifty  years  in  the  memory — even  a  Jewish  memory — 


1  Cf.  Liicke,  ii.  157,  158.  Meyer, 
p.  271.  The  latter  writes,  with  his 
usual  decisiveness,  '  Diese  Erklar- 


ung  .  .  .  kann  nur  mit  Anfgebung 
der  Authentie  des  Joh.  bestehen.' 


VII.J 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


137 


and  then  be  produced  in  the  same  shape  in  which 
they  had  entered.  The  improbabihty  that  this  should 
be  the  case,  increases  in  exact  proportion  to  the  origi- 
naHty  and  native  power  of  the  mind  in  which  they  are 
contained.  The  sharp  crisp  outHnes  of  tangible  facts, 
presented  to  the  eye  and  to  the  senses,  it  will  retain  ; 
but  it  will  mix  something  of  itself  with  the  impalpable 
substance  of  thought.  It  will  digest,  shape,  rearrange 
the  verbal  utterances  treasured  up  in  it,  and  they  will 
be  coloured  by  its  individuality  and  the  other  im- 
pressions that  it  has  received. 

(ii.)  But  it  is  rather  Eucharistic  imagery  that  we 
really  find  than  direct  references  to  the  Sacrament. 
The  arguments  of  Lucke  and  Meyer  seem  to  go  far 
enough  to  prove  this.  The  substitution  of  (rap^  for 
cTQ>\xa  (which  is  found  invariably  in  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  has  a  different  signification^),  and 
especially  the  total  absence  of  any  such  application 
by  the  Evangelist  according  to  his  usual  custom,  point 
this  way.  And  there  is  sufficient  motive  in  the  miracle 
itself,  conceived  first  as  typifying  the  relation  of  the 
believer  to  Christ,  and  then  especially  the  relation 
contracted  through  His  Death,  to  account  for  the 
substance  at  least  of  the  ideas  expressed  in  this 
section  without  supposing  any  immediate  reference 
to  the  Eucharist. 


*  The  '  bread  which  came  down 
from  heaven'  is  the  aap^  or  Incar- 
nation of  Christ,  in  which  the 
Passion,  or  offering  up  of  the  aw/xa, 
is  but  a  single  moment.  Hence 
while  adpf  is  still  reserved  for  the 
glorified  Resurrection-Body,  ow^a  is 
specifically  the  name  for  that  which 
died  upon  the  Cross.  Thus  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  ground  ideas  of 


his  theology,  the  Evangelist,  while 
insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  Faith 
in  our  Lord's  Death  and  Atonement, 
still  does  not  lose  sight  of  that  which 
is  the  centre  of  his  system,  the  per- 
petual apprehension  of  the  Logos 
as  the  Eternal,  Incarnate  Word. 
Compare  on  the  signification  of 
adp(  and  its  distinction  from  aw/M, 
Lticke,  Meyer,  Alford,  ad  loc. 


1.38 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [chap. 


St.  John  vi.  j      (jjj  ■)  j|-  ig  difficult  for  US  to  realise  or  appreciate  the 
■ extent  to  which  symboHsm  reached  in  this  age  gene- 

j  rally,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  fourth  Evangelist  in 
particular.     That  in  these  verses  we  have  a  system, 

;  not  of  literal  conceptions,  but  of  profound  symbolism, 
is  proved  by  noticing  the  different  expressions  that 
are  used  as  equivalent.  '  I  am  the  bread  of  life :  he 
that  Cometh  to  Mc  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he  that 
believcth  07i  Mc  shall  never  thirst'  (ver.  35).  'Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  believeth  on  Me  hath 
everlasting  life.     I  am  that  bread  of  life'  (w.  47,  48). 

, '  He  that  eateth  My  Flesh,  and  drinketh  My  Blood, 

!  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him'  (ver.  56).  Compare 
with  this,  '  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God.  .  .  . 
He  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God 
in  him'  (i  John  iv.  15,  16).  By  the  help  of  these 
key-passages  we  are  enabled  to  determine  the  general 
meaning  of  the  discourse.  Christ  is  the  bread  of  life. 
Faith  is  the  means  whereby  we  partake  of  that  bread, 
and  receive  into  ourselves  its  nourishing  and  sustain- 
ing properties.  But  it  must  be  above  all  faith  in  His 
Death — in  Him  who  died  for  our  sins. 

I  By  means  of  faith  we  make  the  virtue  of  His  Death 
our  own,  and  become  partakers  of  that  life  which  He 
has  with  the  Father.  The  doctrine  is  throughout 
extremely  similar  to  that  of  St.  Paul.  '  If  we  be 
dead  with  Christ  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live 
with  Him '  (Rom.  vi.  8),  nearly  =  ' Whoso  eateth  My 
Flesh  and  drinketh  My  Blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and 
I  in  him.'  And  in  proof  that  the  language  used  is 
symbolical,  we  may  appeal  to  i  Cor.  x.  17,  'We 
being  many  are  one  bread,  and  one  body :    for  we 


,'n.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


139 


are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread  ' — where  tlie  sym- 
bohsm  is  evident  from  the  context.  A  parallel  is 
drawn  which  is  assumed  to  be  exact  between  the 
Lord's  Supper  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  heathen 
idol-feasts  as  well  as  the  Jewish  sacrifices  on  the 
other.  Without  conceding  to  these  last  any  reality, 
the  Apostle  yet  argues  that  they  imply  the  same 
relation  between  the  worshipper  and  the  object  of 
his  worship.  '  But  ]  say,  that  the  things  which  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to 
God  :  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should  Jiavc  fclloivsJiip 
zuith  devils.'  The  words  kolvcmvovs  yiv^aOai,  ixeriyj^iv, 
diVQ  applied  indiff"erently  to  the  '  Lord's  table '  and  to 
the  '  table  of  devils ; '  whence  it  is  clear  that  in  both 
cases  they  are  symbolical,  and  that  the  symbolical 
sense  is  to  be  preferred  in  ver.  16,  17.  The  same 
results  from  a  comparison  of  i  Cor.  xi.  25,  26  with 
27,  '  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  He  come. 
Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink 
this  cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord.'  The  idea  of 
•  shewing '  is  strictly  correlative  with  that  of  incurring 
guilt  by  appropriation.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with 
our  modern  use  to  employ  symbolism  so  deeply. 
We  draw  a  sharper  line  between  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified  ;  the  spiritual  truth  does  not  so  readily 
embody  itself  with  us  in  material  imagery.  But  the 
neglect  of  this  distinction  between  ancient  and  modern, 
between  Latin  or  Greek  and  Hebrew,  between  the 
lofty  spirit  of  Christian  doctrine  and  the  forms  that 
it  has  assumed  in  contact  with  particular  phases  of 
thought  and  civilisation,  has  been  a  fertile  source  of 


St.  John  vi. 


T40 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM.  [chap. 


St.  John  vi. 


misunderstanding  from  the  days  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  to  our  own.  '  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth, 
the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  '. ' 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  in  this  discourse  so  far 
there  is  an  important  basis  of  objective  fact,  and 
where  this  is  deserted  it  still  keeps  strictly  within 
the  limits  of  Apostolic  doctrine.  A  like  conclusion 
holds  good  for  the  parentheses,  ver.  37-40,  and  ver. 
43-46.  '  Him  that  cometh  to  Me  I  will  in  no  wise 
cast  out,'  is  essentially  a  Synoptic  saying.  And  the 
other  text,  '  No  man  can  come  to  Me  except  the 
Father  which  hath  sent  Me  draw  him,'  is  entirely 
in  the  spirit  of  St.  Paul,  though  not  in  his  style.  It 
is  in  fact  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  election  stated  in 
Johannean  language. 

Casting  back  a  glance  over  the  whole  discourse. 


1  There  is  a  valuable  comment 
of  Lightfoot's  (/for.  Hth.  pp.  553, 
554)  on  this  passage.  He  looks  at 
it  from  a  Hebraist  s  point  of  view, 
and  shews  (i.)  that  '  eating  and 
drinking  '  are  common  metaphors. 
'  Every  eating  and  drinking  in  the 
book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  to  be  under- 
stood of  the  Law  and  good  works.' 
Midraih  Cohelelh,  SS.  4  (ii.)  That 
'  bread  '  is  frequentl}'  used  of  '  doc- 
trine.' Is.  iii.  I,  Prov.  ix.  5  are 
thus  interpreted,  (iii.)  That  the 
phrase  '  eating  '  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Messiah :  '  Israel  shall 
eat  the  years  of  the  Messiah '  {i.  e. 
shall  enjoy  the  plenty  and  satiety 
that  belong  to  the  Messiah),  (iv.) 
Putting  this  together  with  the 
warning  in  ver.  63,  '  The  words 
I  speak  unto  j^ou,  they  are  spirit 
and  they  are  life,'  he  concludes 
that  the  discourse  is  '  wholly  par- 
able.' '  But  what  sense  did  they 
take  it  in  that  did  understand  it  ? 


Not  in  a  sacramental  sense  surely, 
unless  they  were  then  instructed  in 
the  Death  and  Passion  of  our 
Saviour;  for  the  Sacrament  hath 
relation  to  His  Death ;  but  this 
sufficiently  appears  elsewhere  that 
they  knew  or  expected  nothing  of 
that.  Much  less  did  they  take  it  in 
a  Jewish  sense.  For  the  Jewish  con- 
ceits were  about  the  weighty  advan- 
tage that  should  accrue  to  them 
from  the  Messiah,  and  those  merely 
earthly  and  sensual.  But  to  par- 
take of  the  Messiah  tmly,  is  to  par- 
take of  Himself,  His  pure  nature. 
His  righteousness,  His  spirit ;  and 
to  live  and  grow  and  receive  nour- 
ishment from  that  participation  of 
Him.  Things  which  the  Jewish 
schools  heard  little  of,  did  not 
believe,  did  not  think  ;  but  things 
which  our  Blessed  Saviour  expres- 
seth  lively  and  compiehensively 
enough,  by  that  of  eating  His  flesh, 
and  drinking  His  blood.' 


VII.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


141 


we  see  plainly  that  it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  Gnosticism,  and  moves  in  an  altogether  different 
circle  of  ideas.  Election,  grace,  faith  in  the  Person 
of  the  Redeemer,  faith  in  His  death,  are  Apostolic, 
not  Gnostic,  themes.  The  words  ava(Tr-\\(TM  avrov  ir\ 
io-xaTi]  ijixipa  SO  trouble  Dr.  Scholten  ^  that  he  casts 
doubt  upon  their  genuineness,  though  they  occur  in 
four  separate  verses,  39,  40,  44,  54.  The  mode  of 
citing  the  Old  Testament,  the  allusions  to  the  '  manna,' 
the  demand  for  a  sign,  and  the  Jews'  question  in  ver. 
42,  '  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father 
and  mother  we  know?'  are  all  marks  of  genuineness 
and  of  the  true  date  and  character  of  the  Gospel.  The 
one  trace  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  in  ver.  46, '  Not 
that  any  man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which 
is  of  God,  he  hath  seen  the  Father ; '  which  however 
shows  from  the  context  in  which  it  occurs  ^  how 
thoroughly  that  doctrine  was  engrafted  on  a  system, 
the  roots  and  stock  of  which  are  not  Greek  but 
Jewish. 

This  is  the  first  discourse  that  we  have  come  to 
as  yet  that  has  a  historical  notice  at  the  end.  But 
this  must  not  mislead  us  as  to  its  true  character. 
It  had  become  impossible  for  the  Apostle  to  separate 
the  subjective  and  objective  elements  in  his  own 
mind  ;  though  we  can  now  to  a  certain  extent  re- 
construct them  by  the  methods  of  analysis  and  com- 
parison. 

The  Evangelist  connects  with  this  discourse  the 
defection  of  many  disciples.  The  ultimate  cause  is 
probably  to  be  sought  in  our  Lord's  refusal  to  assume 

*  p.  129.  thus.  'It  is  written  in  the  prophets, 

*  The  preceding  verse  (45)  begins     And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.' 


St.  John  vi. 


vv.  6o  7 1 . 


142 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


[chap. 


the  outward  insignia  of  the  Messianic  dignity,  and 
in  His  persistent  spiritualisation  of  the  Messianic 
idea.  This  is  intimated  in  ver.  6"}^  ;  and  it  accords 
well  with  the  importance  attached  to  the  confession 
of  St.  Peter.  This  is  no  mere  repetition  of  i.  41. 
It  was  one  thing  to  confess  the  Messiah,  attaching 
to  the  word  its  common  meaning,  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Baptist ;  and  another  thing  to  renew  that  con- 
fession, now  that  His  character  was  fully  developed, 
and  it  became  daily  more  and  more  evident  that  to 
confess  Him  now  would  be  to  open  a  breach  with 
the  whole  mass  of  cherished  Jewish  traditions  and 
expectations,  and  to  run  a  risk  of  sharing  the  fate 
which  that  breach  must  sooner  or  later  involve.  St. 
Peter  deliberately  did  this,  and  thereby  drew  down 
upon  himself  the  commendation,  '  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Barjona  :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  to  thee,  but  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven.' 

It  is  possible  that  ver.  65  ('  No  man  can  come  to 
Me,'  &c.)  may  contain  something  of  a  reminiscence 
of  these  last  words.  Just  as  ver.  61,  62  seem  to 
point  to  the  prophecies  of  the  Passion,  which  with 
the  Synoptists  begin  from  about  this  time,  and 
were  an  additional  cause  of  offence  to  half-hearted 
followers. 

The  confession  of  St.  Peter  is  related  in  terms 
similar,  so  far  as  they  go,  to  the  Synoptists,  and  in 
part  more  vividly,  though  it  is  considerably  abridged 
from  them.  The  tendency  of  this  passage  is  not 
intentionally  anti-Petrine  ;  because,  if  the  commenda- 
tion (Matt.  xvi.  17)  is  omitted,  so  also  is  the  rebuke 
(Matt.  xvi.  23).  St.  Peter  is  rather  spoken  of  through- 
out the  Gospel  in  a  kindly  manner,  that  does  justice 


VII.] 


THE  DISCOURSE  AT  CAPERNAUM. 


M3 


to  his  ;xal  and  to  his  prominence  in  the  ApostoHc 
circle.  In  the  last  chapters  the  Evangelist  freely 
records  the  intimacy  of  his  own  relations  with  him  ^ 

Altogether  this  chapter  shows  a  great  superiority 
over  the  Synoptists  in  the  sense  and  appreciation  it 
reveals  of  the  true  situation,  as  a  crisis  in  the  deve- 
lopment and  definition  of  the  Messianic  character. 
The  Johannean  narrative  '  dove-tailed  into '  the 
Synoptic  makes  the  latter  much  more  intelligible. 
And  how  natural  are  all  these  allusions  to  the  inner 
life  and  belief  of  the  Apostles,  especially  to  the 
traitor,  if  the  author  of  the  Gospel  were  himself  an 
Apostle.  Doubtless  he  had  often  mused  upon  the 
strangeness  of  the  fact  that  a  traitor  should  have  been 
chosen.  Still  he  cannot  but  reconcile  it  with  the 
omniscience  of  the  Chooser.  Notice  the  familiar 
knowledge  implied  in  the  addition, 'Judas  Iscariot  tJic 
son  of  Simonl  which  is  found  again  in  xiii.  26,  but 
not  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Is  this  the  work  of  a 
forger  ? 

The  mention  of  the  'twelve'  now  for  the  first  time 
without  further  explanation  shows  that  the  Synoptic 
tradition  is  presupposed.  It  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  phrase  is  nowhere  used  throughout  the  early 
chapters  i-iv,  where  it  is  probable  that  the  '  twelve ' 
as  a  definite  body  had  not  been  collected. 

'  Cf.  xiii.  23,  24 ;  xviii.  15,  16;  xx.  2  foil. ;  xxi.  3,  7  foil.,  15  foil.,  20. 


St.  John  vi. 
60-71. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 


THE   FEAST   OF   TABERNACLES. 


St.  John.  vii. 


vv.  1-9. 


CHAPTER  vii,  like  chapter  vi,  is  very  impor- 
tant for  the  estimate  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  In 
it  the  scene  of  the  Messianic  crisis  shifts  from  Galilee 
to  Jerusalem  ;  and,  as  we  should  naturally  expect, 
the  crisis  itself  becomes  hotter.  The  divisions,  the 
doubts,  the  hopes,  the  jealousies,  and  the  casuistry  of 
the  Jews  are  vividly  portrayed.  We  see  the  mass  of 
the  populace,  especially  those  who  had  come  up  from 
Galilee,  swaying  to  and  fro,  hardly  knowing  which 
way  to  turn,  inclined  to  believe,  but  held  back  by  the 
more  sophisticated  citizens  of  the  metropolis.  These, 
meanwhile,  apply  the  fragments  of  Rabbinical  learning 
at  their  command  in  order  to  test  the  claims  of  the 
new  prophet.  In  the  background  looms  the  dark 
shadow  of  the  hierarchy  itself,  entrenched  behind  its 
prejudices  and  refusing  to  hear  the  cause  that  it  has 
already  prejudged.  A  single  timid  voice  is  raised 
against  this  injustice,  but  is  at  once  fiercely  silenced. 

The  opening  scene,  which  is  still  laid  in  Galilee,  is 
described  by  M.  Renan  ^  as  a  '  gem  of  history'  (un  petit 

1  p.  499. 


VIII.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


I4f 


trcsor  historiquc).  He  argues  justly  that  an  apologist, 
writing  mereh'  ad  probanduvi,  would  not  have  given 
so  much  prominence  to  the  unbelief  which  Jesus  met 
with  in  His  own  family.  He  insists,  too,  on  the  in- 
dividualising traits  which  the  whole  section  bears. 
The  brethren  of  Jesus  are  not  'types'  but  living  men  ; 
their  ill-natured  and  jealous  irony  is  only  too  human. 

The  Johanncan  turn  that  is  given  to  the  language 
of  verses  6  and  7  ('  The  world  cannot  hate  you,  but  Me 
it  hateth ')  might  cause  suspicion,  but  they  merely 
express  the  natural  answer,  '  You  may  go  up  to  the 
feast,  for  you  can  do  so  without  danger ;  for  Me  it  is 
otherwise.' 

The  commentators  call  attention  to  an  apparent 
change  of  purpose.  '  I  go  not  up  to  this  feast ;'  '  Then 
went  He  also  up  unto  the  feast.'  Before  we  assume 
that  the  change  is  real,  we  must  be  sure  that  we  have 
before  us  the  exact  expression  used.  But  it  would 
seem  as  if  the  Evangelist  himself  intended  the  mean- 
ing of  ovK  ava^air(ji  to  be  exhausted  by  verse  9,  '  When 
He  had  said  these  words  unto  them,  He  abode  still  in 
Galilee.'  Ovk  would  therefore  be  practically  equiva- 
lent to  oiiTToi).  Still  the  fact  that  room  has  been  left 
for  the  suggestion  of  a  change  of  purpose,  does  not 
seem  to  be  consistent  with  the  statement  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  '  has  been  carried  out  through 
the  Gospel  with  mathematical  accuracy.' 

An  equal  degree  of  authenticity  belongs  to  the 
verses  which  follow  10-15.  The  whispered  enquiries 
and  debatings  among  the  people,  the  secret  journey, 
the  sudden  appearance  in  the  temple  in  the  midst  of 
the  feast,  and  in  particular,  the  question  that  alludes 
to  the  Rabbinical  schools  and  the  custom  of  professed 

L 


St.  John  vii 
1-9. 


vv.  10-15. 


146 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


St.  John  vii. 
10-15. 


St.  John  vii. 
16-36. 


teachers  to  frequent  them,  compose  a  varied,  clear, 
and  graphic  picture  that  has  every  circumstance  of 
probabihty  in  its  favour. 

In  the  dialogue  we  shall  expect  to  find  a  larger 
subjective  element ;  but  this  does  not  seem  to  extend 
quite  so  far  as  in  some  others.  The  part  of  it  which 
is  borne  by  the  Jews  serves  to  accredit  the  rest. 
The  question  and  comments  in  ver.  25-27  ('when 
Christ  Cometh,  no  man  knoweth  where  He  is'),  ver.  31, 
('will  He  do  more  miracles.'''),  ver.  35  ('will  He  go 
unto  the  dispersed  among  the  Gentiles .'' '),  vv.  40-43 
('shall  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee.'*')  are  all  exactly 
what  we  should  expect  from  the  popular  mode  of 
interpreting  and  applying  the  Messianic  prophecies. 
If  we  do  not  possess  full  historical  verification  on 
every  point,  e.  g.  in  ver.  27,  the  obscurity  of  the 
Messiah's  origin  \  this  does  not  go  far  to  invalidate 
it.  For  our  knowledge  of  the  Messianic  expectations 
is  too  imperfect  to  warrant  us  in  affirming  positively 
that  any  particular  feature  was  not  included  in  them. 
If  a  similar  feature  had  been  found  in  a  less  disputed 
book,  e.  g.  one  of  the  Synoptists,  it  would  doubtless 
at   once  have  been   accepted.     And  it  is   difficult,  if 


^  It  is  true  that  the  passages 
usually  quoted,  Justin  c.  Tryph.  p. 
226,  Xpiarus  5e  d  Kal  yc/ivrjTai 
Kot  iOTL  TTov,  ayvcuaros  fan  k.t  X., 
and  p.  336,  ii  Se  Kal  kKr]Kv6ivai 
Keyovaiv,  oi/  'fivwoKtrai,  os  (otlv 
K.T.K.  are  not  exactly  to  the  point. 
For  they  assert,  not  that  the  origin 
of  the  Messiah  will  be  unknown, 
but  that  the  world  in  general  and 
the  Messiah  Himself  will  be  ignor- 
ant of  His  Messiahhip,  until  He  is 
anointed  by  Elias.  And  yet  the 
two  conceptions  are  clearly  cog- 
nate ;  we  could  conceive  them  to 


be  derived  from  the  same  prophecy, 
e.  g.  Is.  liii.  8,  or  Is.  Iviii.  lo. 
Another  cognate  idea  is  found  in 
Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  ad  loc.  'A  Roe 
appeals  and  is  hid,  appears  and  is 
hid  again.  So  our  first  Redeemer 
(Moses)  appeared  and  was  hid,  and 
at  length  appeared  again.  ...  So 
our  latter  Redeemer  (Messiah) 
shall  be  revealed  to  them,  and 
shall  be  hid  again  from  them ;  and 
how  long  shall  he  be  hid  from 
them,'  etc.  Compare  Meyer  ad 
loc.  Hilgenfeld,  p.  282  ;  Liicke, 
ii.  212. 


•III.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


147 


no:  impossible,  to  conceive  any  train  of  thought  that 
could  have  suggested  such  a  point  as  an  invention. 
When  a  statement  of  this  kind  is  made  incidentally 
and  with  precision,  it  may  generally  be  taken  as 
authentic  ;  at  all  events  the  burden  of  proof  must 
rest  with  those  who  deny  its  authenticity. 

The  ironical  question  of  the  Jews,  when  our  Lord 
announces  His  approaching  departure,  '  Will  He  go  to 
the  Gentiles  and  teach  the  Gentiles  t '  is  pointed  and 
natural.  And  the  way  in  which  they  insist  that  the 
Messiah  must  come  of  the  seed  of  David  and  from 
David's  city,  Bethlehem,  is  confirmed  by  the  first 
Evangelist's  application  of  the  prophecy  of  Micah 
(Matt.  ii.  5,  6). 

We  may  notice,  as  equally  in  character,  the  telling 
argnmcntiiin  ad  Jiomincni  of  vv.  22,  23,  and  especially 
the  correction  of  ver.  22  ;  '  Circumcision  is  a  rite  older 
than  Moses,  and  dating  back  even  to  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs.  You  allow  it  therefore  to  override  the 
obligations  of  the  Sabbath.  How  much  more  then 
should  that  obligation  yield  to  a  work  of  mercy  by 
which  a  sick  man  was  made  entirely  whole .'' '  For 
the  form  of  the  argument,  which  is  altogether  cast 
in  a  Synoptic  mould,  we  may  compare  Matt.  xxii. 
41-45  ('the  Son  of  David').  The  concluding  verse, 
'  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but  judge 
righteous  judgment,'  may  be  readily  authenticated 
out  of  the  Synoptists.  The  proposition  is  general  : 
but  we  see  that  it  has  especial  reference  to  what 
precedes,  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  '  Aim  at 
observing  it  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter,  and 
judge  others  on  the  same  principle  \'     Very  similar 

'   We   may   compare   with    this    the  remarkable  fragment   of  tradi- 
L  2 


St.  John  vii. 
16-36. 


148 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


St.  John  vii. 
16-36. 


St.  John  vii. 
.37-39- 


to  this  are  the  instructions  upon  prayer  and  fasting 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  '  Thou,  when  thou 
fastest,  anoint  thine  head  and  wash  thy  face,  that 
thou  appear  not  unto  men  to  fast,  but  unto  thy 
Father  which  is  in  secret.'  Compare  Matt.  xv.  18-20 
('  the  things  which  defile  a  man  '). 

Ver.  30  is  a  natural  comment  of  the  Evangelist 
after  the  event,  interpreting  the  abstention  of  the 
Jews  from  immediate  violence,  as  providentially 
ordered.  How  much  of  such  passages  as  vv.  17,  18 
('  he  that  speaketh  of  himself  seeketh  his  own  glory')  ; 
18,  29  ('I  am  not  come  of  Myself)  ;  and  again  33, 
34  ('  yet  a  little  while  am  I  with  you '),  may  be  due 
to  the  Evangelist  we  cannot  say,  but  probably  in 
each  of  these  cases  the  basis  is  original.  Something 
like  w.  33  and  34  is  implied  by  ver.  "^^^  though  we 
should  perhaps  be  right  in  excluding,  with  Meyer, 
the  words  tt/oos  tov  Tii\j.^avra  ju,e,  as  apparently  too 
definite  to  allow  of  the  question  which  follows.  Simi- 
larly ver.  28  has  both  its  accurate  localisation  in  its 
favour,  and  succeeds  naturally  to  ver,  27.  Ver.  17, 
which  asserts  the  moral  qualification  for  a  right  belief 
('if  any  man  will  do  His  will '),  has  implied  though 
not  direct  parallels  in  the  Synoptists  ;  e.  g.  the  con- 
verse thought  lies  at  the  bottom  of  Matt.  xiii.  14,  15 
('their  heart  is  waxed  gross'),  also  Matt.  xi.  21,  22 
('  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida'). 

Mr.  Blunt '  draws  an  undesigned  coincidence  from 
vv.  37,  38  ('if  any  man  thirst'),  on  the  ground  that 

tion  quoted  by  Westcott  {Intr.  p.  art   blessed,  but  if  thou  knowest 

428),  '  On  the   same    day,  having  not,    thou   art    cursed    and    art    a 

seen  one  working  on  the  Sabbath,  transgressor  of  the  law."  ' 

He  said  to  him,  "  O  man,  if  indeed  '  Scriptural  Coincidences,  p.  2 88. 
thou  knowest  what  thou  doest,  thou 


VIII.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


149 


on  the  eighth  day  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  '  it  was 
the  custom  to  offer  to  God  a  pot  of  water  drawn 
from  the  pool  of  Siloam.'  This  act,  Mr.  Blunt  thinks, 
was  taken  as  the  text  for  a  deep  spiritual  lesson. 
There  appears  indeed  to  be  some  cjuestion  as  to  the 
matter  of  fact.  Libations  took  place  upon  the  seven 
other  days  of  the  feast,  but  it  is  somewhat  doubtful 
whether  they  also  took  place  on  the  eighth  and  last  ^. 
Perhaps  the  exclamation  in  vv.  "^"J,  38  may  have 
been  suggested  by  the  custom.  But  the  coincidence 
is  hardly  sufficiently  clear  to  be  used  as  an  argu- 
ment, 

'  He  that  believeth  in  Me,  as  the  Scripture  hath 
said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.' 
The  exact  words  of  this  quotation  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  idea  may  be  made 
up  out  of  passages  like  Is.  xii.  3,  xliv.  3,  Iv.  i,  &c. 
but  the  expression  Ik  ti]s  KotAtas  avTov  seems,  in  par- 
ticular, to  have  no  equivalent  ^.  The  Apostolic 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are,  however, 
notoriously  inexact ;  and  this  is,  at  least  in  form, 
probably  Apostolic,  That  the  Evangelist  remembered 
something  similar  to  it  appears  from  his  comment,  ver. 
39,  which  has  also  a  strong  ring  of  genuineness.  Once 
more  the  Apostle  is  speaking  from  his  own  experi- 
ence. To  him  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  had  been  the 
work  of  a  definite  moment  ;  and  to  that  he  now 
looks  back.     The  chronology  is  that  of  his  own  life, 

'  Cf.  Meyer,  Co7nw.  pp.  310,  31 1,  drink');    but   the    parallel   to   this 

also  Caspari,  pp.  144,  145.     It  is  would    be  in   the  drawing  of  the 

objected   further  against  the  sup-  water   from  the   pool    of  Siloam, 

posed    reference    to    the    libations,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  libation 

that  these  would  not  suggest  the  would  symbolise  the  resulting  cf- 

idea    of   drinking.     ('  If  any    man  flucnce  of  spiritual  life, 

thirst,  let  him  come  unto  Me  and  ^  Cf.  Meyer,  pp.  311,  312. 


St.  John  vii. 
.^7-39- 


ISO 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


St.  John  vii. 
37-39- 


which  a  writer  in  the  second  century  would  not  have 
cared  or  been  able  to  reproduce.  We  have  here 
too  another  instance  of  the  Evangelist's  profound 
use  of  symbolism. 

The  concluding  section  of  the  chapter  contains  a 
graphic  description  of  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim. 
The  relation  of  the  Pharisees  to  the  chief  priests  (who 
belonged  mostly  to  the  Sadducees),  to  their  officers,  to 
the  multitude,  whose  ignorance  of  the  law  they 
despise,  to  wavering  members  of  their  own  order,  is 
well  preserved.  It  is  not  of  much  consequence  that 
they  overlook  the  fact  that  the  prophet  Jonah  w^as  by 
birth  a  Galilean  \  Galilee  was  in  any  case  the  part 
of  the  two  kingdoms  least  honoured  by  the  prophetic 
activity ;  the  Messiah  was  expected  to  arise  out  of 
Judaea  ;  and  it  is  only  natural  that  a  point  should  be 
strained  in  the  heat  of  argument.  The  account  of 
this  meeting,  like  that  of  the  interview  in  chap,  iii, 
was  perhaps  communicated  to  the  Evangelist  by 
Nicodemus  himself.  We  shall  see  later  that  he  seems 
to  have  had  acquaintances  in  high  place  at  Jerusalem  ; 
and  if  Nicodemus  was  not  among  them  at  the  first, 
he  may  have  become  so  during  the  long  period  that 
the  Apostles  remained  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  noticeable 
that  most  of  the  early  Christian  documents — the  Acts 
as  well  as  the  Synoptic  Gospels — contain  more  or  less 
detailed  accounts  of  transactions  in   the  Sanhedrim. 

In  reviewing  the  chapter  we  cannot  but  see  that  it 

*  Gath-hepher,  the  birthplace  of    another   in    Assyria.     Thisbe,  the 


Jonah,  was  situated  in  the  territoiy 
of  Zebulun.  This  is  the  only  clear 
exception.  It  is  possible  that 
Nahum  the  Elkoshite  may  have 
been  also  a  native  of  Galilee.  One 
tradition  places  Elkosh  there,  but 


birth-place  of  Elijah,  was  in  Gilead. 
across  the  Jordan.  With  respect 
to  Hosea,  we  do  not  know  more 
than  that  he  was  a  prophet  of  the 
northern  kingdom. 


,-III.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


151 


has  added  largely  to  the  already  abundant  proof  that 
the  standpoint  of  the  Evangelist  is  strictly  that  of  a 
Jew  of  Palestine  and  of  a  contemporary.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  has  receded  far  into  the  back- 
ground ;  and  though  it  may,  perhaps,  have  helped  to 
determine  the  selection  of  the  subject,  as  part  of  the 
great  conflict  between  light  and  darkness,  still  in  the 
execution  it  has  given  way  to  an  entirely  different 
circle,  both  of  language  and  of  ideas.  The  fact  that 
these  are  so  marked  ///  spite  of  the  theology  of  the 
prologue,  is  a  proof  at  once  of  the  tenacious  .nation- 
ality of  the  author,  and  of  his  strictly  historical  motive 
in  writing'. 


Few  results  of  textual  criticism  are  more  generally 
accepted  than  that  which  removes  the  twelve  verses 
from  vii.  52  viii.  11,  from  their  present  context  and 
from  the  fourth  Gospel',  There  is  much  acuteness 
and  plausibility  in  the  suggestion  of  Dr,  Holtzmann, 
which  has  some  countenance  from  the  cursive  Mss. 
of  St.  Luke,  that  they  originally  formed  part  of  the 
ground  document  of  the  three  Synoptists  (the  '  Ur- 
marcus'),  and  that  their  proper  place  is  among  the 
events  of  the  last  week  before  the  Passion.  But  this 
is  a  question  that  we  need  not  go  into.  The  chrono- 
logical question,  too,  as  to  the  number  of  days  covered 
by  the  events  of  chapters  vii.  viii.  and  ix.  is  one  that 
cannot  receive  any  decisive  answer;  vii.  14-31,  we  know, 
falls  about  the  middle  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles ; 

'  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tie-  cott,  p.  253,  text  and  note.  Dr. 
gelles,  Alford,  Meyer,  omit  or  Iloltzmann's  thcorj'  is  worked  out 
bracket  them.     Compare  also  Elli-     in  his  Synopt.  Ev.  pp.  92,  93. 


St. John  vii. 
37-39- 


St. John  viii. 
The  woman 
taken  in 

adultery. 


The 

chronology 
of  these 
chapters. 


152 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


vii.  37  falling  on  the  last  day  of  the  feast  :  but 
where  we  are  to  draw  the  line,  as  marking  the  con- 
clusion of  that  day,  is  not  clear.  The  next  definite 
date  that  we  possess  is  in  x.  22,  the  feast  of  Dedi- 
cation, which  is  separated  from  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles by  an  interval  of  two  months.  It  is  hard  to 
say  how  far  the  intermediate  discourses  are  to  be 
regarded  as  continuous,  or  even  to  which  extremity 
of  the  period  they  are  to  be  attached.  On  the  whole 
it  appears  best  to  place  the  chief  break  at  x.  21  ; 
there  is  a  slighter  one  at  the  end  of  chapter  vii ;  and 
the  discourses  in  chapter  viii.  are  probably  to  be 
placed  in  close  proximity  to  the  cure  on  the  Sabbath- 
day  in  chapter  ix. 

Taking  up  the  narrative  at  viii.  12,  we  find  much 
to  which  it  is  difficult  to  assign  the  highest  objective 
value.  The  opening  verse,  '  I  am  the  light  of  the 
world  :  he  that  followeth  Me  shall  not  walk  in  dark- 
ness, but  shall  have  the  light  of  life,'  is  remarkable  as 
illustrating  the  Evangelist's  peculiar  syncretism.  The 
conception  of  '  light '  belongs  as  much  to  the  Old 
Testament  as  to  the  Philonian  philosophy.  It  is 
found  in  Messianic  passages  like  Is.  ix.  i  ('  the  people 
that  sat  in  darkness '),  xiii.  6,  7  ('a  light  of  the 
Gentiles'),  Mai.  iv.  2,  3  ('.the  Sun  of  Righteousness') '. 
These  seemed  to  blend  and  be  assimilated  very  com- 
pletely with  the  doctrine  of  the  prologue.  Indeed 
the  starting-point  of  the  Evangelist  appears  to  be 
everywhere  the  Old  Testament :  and  it  was  only 
because  it  had  so  many  points  of  affinity  and  contact 
with    this    that    the    philosophy    of    Philo    had    such 

'  So  the  Talmud,  '  Light  is  the  name  of  the  Messiah '  (Lightfoot, 
Hor.  Heb.  p.  564). 


VIII.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERXACLES. 


153 


attractions  for  him.  The  dialect  of  the  two  systems 
was  nearly  the  same  ;  and  in  passing  from  the  one  to 
the  other,  it  was  only  necessary  to  give  to  the  same 
terms  a  somewhat  different  and  more  abstract  mean- 
ing, and  to  co-ordinate  them  somewhat  differently 
with  one  another.  However,  in  the  case  before  us,  it 
is  probable  that  the  groundwork  of  the  saying  is 
not  Johannean,  but  authentic  and  original.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  it  is  true,  we  find,  not  '  I  am 
the  light  of  the  world,'  but  '  Ye  are  the  light  of  the 
world.'  Rut  the  two  sayings  do  not  at  all  exclude  each 
other.  Both  St.  Matthew  (iv.  15,  16,  'The  people 
that  sat  in  darkness'),  and  St.  Luke  (ii.  32)  adopt 
the  prophecies  of  the  Messianic  light,  and  St.  Luke 
gives  it  the  same  universalizing  turn  that  it  has  here 
in  St.  John — '  A  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles  and  the 
glory  of  Thy  people  Israel.'  That  which  is  peculiar 
to  St.  John,  is  the  close  individual  relation  which  he 
assumes  on  the  part  of  the  believer  with  the  Person 
of  Jesus.  But  this,  as  we  have  seen,  is  in  accordance  as 
well  with  the  Evangelic  as  the  Apostolic  tradition,  and 
has  been  from  the  first  an  essential  part  of  Christianity. 

The  Pharisees  dispute  this  exalted  self-assertion  : 
'  Thou  bearest  record  of  thyself ;  thy  record  is  not 
true.'     The  answer  is  double. 

(i)  If  My  witness  stood  alone  it  would  still  hold 
good  ;  for  it  is  based  upon  a  consciousness  that 
reaches  far  beyond  yours.  I  know  whence  I  came 
and  whither  I  go,  what  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of 
this  My  earthly  existence :  you  judge  merely  as  men, 
'  after  the  flesh,'  or  by  the  senses  \ 

'  Ye  jiitlge  after  the  flesh,  [I  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the 
judge  no  man].     This  is  another     Johannean  discourses  suddenly  start 


St.J. 


154 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


St.  Johnviii. 
vv.  17-19. 


(2)  But  My  witness  is  not  Mine  alone  ;  it  is  also  that 
of  My  Father.  And  your  own  Law  says  that  the  witness 
of  two  men  is  true  ^ ;  how  much  more  such  witness  } 

In  the  argument  thus  nakedly  stated  there  are 
traces  of  extreme  condensation.  At  first  sight  it  seems 
more  like  a  Rabbinical  sophism  than  one  of  the  'words 
of  life' ;  but  by  referring  to  the  parallels  in  v.  36-38 
and  xiv.  10,  11,  we  perceive  that  it  is  really  a  highly 
condensed  expression  of  what  is  there  given  more 
fully.  Of  the  '  two  witnesses,'  one  is  the  self-evident 
force  of  truth — or  of  the  personal  embodiment  of 
truth — apprehended  by  ethical  sympathy  ('  If  any  man 
will  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether 
it  is  of  God') :  the  second  is  that  of  which  the  outward 
manifestation  is  in  the  miracles  and  miraculous  signs 
of  the  Divine  approbation  (xii.  28,  &c.). 

Still  it  is  difficult  to  regard  this  condensation  as 
otherwise  than  forced  ;  the  dialogue  leaves  little  room 
for  it ;  and  the  recurrence  of  the  argument  tends  to 
make  us  hesitate  in  accepting  any  one  form  of  it  as 
completely  authentic.  That  there  is  at  least  an  au- 
thentic basis,  is  guaranteed  by  the  exact  note  of  place 
in  ver.  20,  '  These  things  spake  Jesus  in  the  treasury, 
as  He  taught  in  the  temple.'  The  reminiscence  of  the 
actual  discourse  may  have  been  somewhat  obscured 
in  the  Apostle's  mind. 


away  upon  some  merely  verbal  as- 
sociation. None  of  the  many  at- 
tempts to  bring  the  words  in  brackets 
into  the  strict  line  of  the  argument 
can  be  called  successful.  Certainly 
not,  'I  judge  no  man  now  (Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom,  and  others') — the 
'  now '  is  quite  arbitrarily  intro- 
duced ;  nor  '  I  judge  not  after  the 
I  flesh,  as  you  do'  (Liicke), '  no  man's 


person  '  (Ewald),  which  cannot  be 
got  out  of  the  Greek ;  nor  '  I  come 
not  to  judge  but  to  bless  '  or  '  save ' 
(Luthardt  and  Meyer).  This  is  the 
true  sense  ;  but  the  idea  of '  saving  ' 
is  quite  foreign  to  the  argument — 
it  is  a  sudden  digression. 

^  The  phase  of  the  moon  had  to 
be  attested  by  two  persons ;  cf. 
Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  p.  565. 


r-III.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


Again,  the  Evangelist  sees  the  hand  of  Providence 
restraining  the  keen  irritation  of  the  Pharisees. 

The  interview  is  continued  ;  and  our  Lord  repeats 
the  announcement  of  His  approaching  departure.  '  A 
time  will  come  when  you  will  repent  of  these  lost 
opportunities.  Then  you  will  seek  and  will  not  find 
Me ;  then  too  you  will  know  who  it  is  that  you  have 
lost.'  The  connection  appears  to  be  confused  by  that 
reiterated  self-assertion,  which  was  indeed  there,  but 
which  the  Evangelist  regards  somewhat  too  exclu- 
sively. We  can  well  believe  that  there  was  more  in 
the  original  of  the  winning  pathos  of  the  lament  over 
Jerusalem  (Luke  xix.  42-44) ;  in  which  case  we  could 
perhaps  better  understand  the  concluding  statement, 
'As  He  spake  these  words,  many  believed  on  Him.' 

The  new  converts,  who  come  forward  with  a  pro- 
fession of  faith,  receive  a  word  of  encouragement  as 
well  as  of  warning.  They  were  not  to  mistake  a 
momentary  impulse  for  a  deliberate  conviction.  '  If 
ye  continue  in  My  word,  then  are  ye  My  disciples 
indeed  ;  and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
shall  make  you  free.' 

These  words  are  taken  up  apparently  by  some  of 
the  bystanders,  who  understand  them  partly  in  the 
sense  in  which  they  were  spoken,  as  having  reference 
not  to  national  but  to  individual  freedom,  but  miss 
that  spiritual  sense  to  which  their  whole  habits  of 
mind  made  them  inaccessible.  The  Jewish  pride  of 
birth  naturally  prompts  their  question.  They  were 
descendants  of  Abraham  ;  they  had  never  been  slaves 
to  any  man  ;  how  could  they  be  made  free .''  But 
there  is  something  strange  in  the  answer,  direct  and 
appropriate  though  the  main  portion  of  it  is  :  '  Verily, 


155 

St.  John  viii. 
vv.  •21-30. 


vv.  3I-.32- 


vv.  33-.^6 


156 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  committeth  sin  is 
the  servant  of  sin.  And  the  servant  abideth  not  in 
the  house  for  ever :  but  the  Son  fibideth  ever.  If 
therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be 
free  indeed.'  We  seem  almost  to  be  hearing  an  echo 
of  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (Rom.  vi.  16-23),  'Know  ye 
not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield  yourselves  servants  to 
obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey  ;  whether 
of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  unto  righteousness  ?' 
and  again  (Gal.  iv.  30,  31  ;  v.  i),  'Cast  out  the  bond- 
woman and  her  son  ....  we  are  not  children  of  the 
bondwoman,  but  of  the  free  ....  the  liberty  where- 
with Christ  hath  made  us  free.'  Does  or  does  not 
this  resemblance  imply  a  relation  of  dependence .'' 
Probably  advocates  would  be  found  for  both  views. 
If  the  resemblance  had  been  to  the  other  division  of 
the  canonical  Epistles,  those  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James, 
and  St.  Jude,  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  : 
we  should  have  inferred  at  once  that  the  similar 
passages  had  a  common  origin  ;  in  fact  that  the 
Johannean  record  was  strictly  authentic.  But  the 
'  revelation '  which  St.  Paul  claimed  certainly  would 
not  include  details  of  expression  and  phraseology 
such  as  these.  It  is  possible  that  in  Philo  or  the 
Rabbinical  schools  some  such  figure  of  speech  may 
have  been  current.  But  it  is  not  by  any  means  in- 
credible that  St.  John  should  actually  have  seen  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  The  phenomena  of  the  Epistles  to 
the  Hebrews,  of  St.  Peter,  and  of  St.  James,  seem  to 
prove  a  somewhat  free  circulation  and  interchange  of 
the  Apostolic  literature  ;  and  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
later  in  date  than  any  of  these.  We  must  notice 
however  that  the  Pauline  doctrine  is  not  reproduced 


VIII. 


77//=:  FEAST  OF  TABERXACLES. 


157 


crudely,  but  is  assimilated  with  the  rest  of  the  Johan- 
ncan  system,  and  has  received  the  genuine  Johannean 
stamp.  This  we  see  by  the  repetition  of  /ixeVet  (fre- 
quent in  St.  John,  rare  in  St.  Paul),  and  in  the  em- 
phatic ovTiii^  eXcvOfiJoi. 

Another  argument  that  seems  to  throw  doubt  upon 
the  originality  of  the  passage  is  found  in  the  peculiar 
transitions  and  ellipses  of  the  thought.  '  Whosoever 
committeth  sin,  is  the  servant  of  sin.  And  the 
seivant  abideth  not  in  the  house  for  ever :  but  the 
Son  abideth  ever.  If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make 
you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.'  The  connection 
between  the  first  two  clauses  is  distant  and  subtle. 
The  qualification  under  which  the  figure  of  servitude 
is  introduced  is  dropped  entirely.  The  servitude  (of 
sin)  suggests  the  idea  of  servitude  in  the  abstract : 
and  to  this  the  idea  of  sonship  in  the  abstract  is 
opposed.  Then  there  is  a  further  transition  from 
the  abstraction  of  sonship  to  the  Son  in  the  concrete 
— the  Messiah.  And  in  the  inference  there  is  a  gap. 
It  is  assumed  that  the  Son  must  communicate  His 
own  attributes  to  those  whom  He  emancipates.  The 
thought  is  indeed  throughout  profound  and  instruc- 
tive ;  and  to  a  Jew,  always  ready  to  picture  to  himself 
the  theocracy  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven  under  the 
form  of  a  '  household,'  it  would  be  easily  intelligible — 
and  yet  I  doubt  much  whether  any  clear  parallel  can 
be  adduced  from  the  Synoptists.  The  difficulties  that 
we  find  in  them  ('Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  chil- 
dren,' '  Make  yourselves  friends  of  the  mammon  of 
unrighteousness,'  'Where  the  body  is,  there  will  the 
eagles  be  gathered  together')  are  quite  different. 
The  mode  of  thought  is  rather  Apostolic — essentially 


St.  John  viii. 


158 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


Apostolic,  Jewish,  of  the  first  century,  but  not  of 
that  universal  elemental  kind  which  distinguishes  the 
'  words  of  the  Lord,' 

Does  it  follow  from  all  this  that  the  discourse,  or  at 
least  the  opening  of  it,  is  an  ideal  composition  ?  I 
think  not.  It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
in  form  at  least  it  has  been  considerably  modified. 
But  there  is  much  dramatic  propriety  in  the  Jews' 
appeal  to  their  descent  from  Abraham.  And  the 
relations  of  social  subjection  arc  largely  used  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  to  illustrate  ethical  and  spiritual 
truths.  We  seem  to  have  here  a  combination  and 
subtle  development  of  two  passages,  '  No  man  can 
serve  two  masters'  (Matt.  vi.  24),  and  the  discourse 
respecting  the  tribute-money  (Matt.  xvii.  25,  26,  '  the 
children  are  free').  We  may  also  see  something  of  a 
parallel  in  Matt.  xii.  29,  the  strong  man  armed  (the 
tyranny  of  sin)  subdued  by  one  stronger.  The 
ground  idea  is  doubtless  evangelic. 

The  next  section,  which  extends  from  ver,  37  to 
ver.  47,  is  occupied  by  a  different  subject.  From  the 
liberty  which  belongs  to  the  children  of  the  kingdom, 
the  argument  passes  to  the  Jews'  claim  to  be  con- 
sidered children  of  Abraham.  This  is  shown  in  its 
true  light  and  character.  After  the  flesh  they  are 
children  of  Abraham,  But  in  spirit  they  have  a 
very  different  parentage.  Abraham  would  not  have 
done  what  they  are  doing.  Their  actions  show  from 
whence  they  are.  Their  murderous  designs,  their 
rejection  of  the  truth,  can  only  come  from  him  who 
was  a  murderer  and  a  liar  from  the  beginning. 

Here  again  there  is  dramatic  propriety,  and  we 
are  reminded  of  Synoptic  phrases,  '  The  wicked  and 


VIII.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERXACLES. 


159 


adulterous  generation,'  '  the  child  of  hell '  (Matt,  xxiii. 
15), 'the  tares  arc  the  children  of  the  wicked  one' 
(Matt.  xiii.  1%).  Generally  there  are  points  of  con- 
nection both  with  the  dispute  with  the  Pharisees  in 
Matt.  xii.  22-30,  and  the  denunciation  of  them  in 
Matt,  xxiii.  It  is  likely  that  dialogues  of  this  sort 
would  be  of  not  infrequent  occurrence,  especially  just 
at  this  time  when  the  conflict  is  reaching  its  climax. 
It  is  likely  too  that  they  would  be  of  the  nature  of 
dialogues  broken  by  impatient  interruptions  on  the 
part  of  the  Jews,  and  not  always  a  continuous  strain 
of  denunciation  as  in  Matt,  xxiii. 

In  the  last  section,  from  ver.  47  to  ver.  58,  the  Jews 
retort  the  charge  of  ver.  44,  and  they  allude  to  the 
counter-assertion  as  one  that  was  current  among 
themselves,  '  Say  wc  not  well  that  thou  art  a  Sam.a- 
ritan  and  hast  a  devil .'' '  Our  Lord  answers,  first,  by 
asserting  that  His  work  has  a  far  different  character 
from  that  which  they  attribute  to  it ;  and  then  by 
appealing  to  that  Divine  testimony  which  He  bears. 
Not  only  so,  but  even  Abraham  himself  bare  witness 
to  Him.  To  him  was  accorded  a  prophetic  vision  of 
the  Messiah.  And  now  that  vision  was  fulfilled. 
The  discourse  ends  with  an  assertion  of  pre-existence, 
at  which  the  Jews  are  incensed  to  fury.  And  it  was 
with  difficulty  — almost,  the  Evangelist  would  seem  to 
suggest,  by  miracle — that  Jesus  escaped  them. 

The  discourse  as  a  whole  seems  to  be  a  strange 
mixture  of  original  and  added  elements.  It  contains 
some  singularly  vivid  flashes  of  reminiscence,  among 
which  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  is  that  in  ver. 
48.  Nowhere  else  do  we  find  the  designation  '  a 
Samaritan ' ;  yet  it  would   naturally — we   might  say 


St.  John  viii. 


4*^-59  • 


Mixed 
character 
of  the 
discourse. 


i6o 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


[chap. 


St.  John  viii. 


inevitably — be  given  to  one  who  seemed  to  attack 
the  exclusive  privileges  of  the  Jewish  people.  On 
the  other  hand,  '  He  casteth  out  devils  by  Beelzebub, 
the  prince  of  devils '  (Matt.  xii.  24),  was,  according 
to  the  Synoptists,  the  way  in  which  the  Pharisees 
accounted  for  the  influence  that  Jesus  possessed  over 
the  unclean  spirits.  The  crowning  stroke  is  given 
by  that  vivid  piece  of  dramatic  reproduction,  '  Say 
zvc  not  zvcllf  Doubtless  these  accusations  formed 
part  of  the  calumnies  that  were  circulated  among 
the  people  by  the  Pharisaic  party.  But  the  whole 
of  the  Jews'  reasoning  throughout  the  discourse  is 
strictly  what  we  should  expect  from  them.  These 
constant  appeals  to  their  descent  from  Abraham, 
these  repeated  imputations  of  diabolic  possession, 
this  narrow  intelligence  bounded  by  the  letter,  this 
jealousy  of  anything  that  seemed  in  the  slightest 
degree  to  trench  on  their  own  rigid  monotheism — 
all  these,  down  to  the  touch  in  ver.  57,  in  which 
the  age  they  fix  upon  in  round  numbers  is  that 
assigned  to  completed  manhood,  give  local  truth  and 
accuracy  to  the  picture  ;  which  in  any  case,  we  may 
say  confidently,  must  have  been  drawn  by  a  Pales- 
tinian Jew,  and  was  in  all  probability  drawn  by  a 
Jew  who  had  been  himself  an  early  disciple  of  Christ. 
For  precisely  at  that  very  point  where  the  record 
seems  to  deviate  from  the  pristine  standard  of  ac- 
curacy, we  seem  to  see  a  further  indication  that  its 
author  was  really  an  Apostle.  There  is  a  sensible 
difference  between  these  discourses  and  their  parallels 
in  the  Synoptists.  Set  them  side  by  side  with  the 
denunciatory  discourse  in  the  first  Gospel,  Matt.  xi. 
20-24,    xii'    3^~45j   ^'^^d    xxiii,   and    we    cannot   but 


VIII.] 


THE  FEAST  OF    TABERNACLES. 


i6i 


feci  that  another  sph'it  has  come  over  them.  In 
St.  Matthew  we  have  outpourings  of  righteous  in- 
dignation, the  object  of  which  is  moral  obhquity. 
Even  in  the  passage  (Matt.  xii.  38-42)  where  the 
Messianic  side  is  brought  out  most  prominently,  it 
is  repentance  that  is  in  view  rather  than  belief;  '  the 
men  of  Nineveh  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonas.' 
The  call  to  repentance  was  universal,  inexorable. 
Belief  was  complicated  by  a  thousand  difficulties. 
Hillel  or  Gamaliel  might  have  been  perhaps  little 
less  severe  upon  their  contemporaries  than  Christ  ; 
but  would  Hillel  or  Gamaliel  have  believed .-'  Yet 
these  personal  claims  are  put  forward  almost  ex- 
clusively by  St.  John.  And  the  lash  is  inflicted 
without  tenderness,  without  mercy.  There  is  none 
of  that  yearning  pity  that  the  attentive  ear  may 
distinguish  as  a  deep  sustained  under-chord  beneath 
the  most  withering  invectives  of  the  Synoptists.  '  Ye 
are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lust  of  your 
father  ye  will  do.'  .  .  .  .  '  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem  ! 
thou  that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which 
are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered 
thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not ! ' 

Who  is  most  likely  to  have  introduced  such 
changes .''  Who  but  an  Apostle  .'*  One  to  whom 
his  Master  had  been  indeed  all  in  all  ;  his  light ; 
his  life ;  the  giver  of  all  truth,  and  the  source  of  all 
goodness.  With  what  temper  would  he  regard  those 
murderers  who  had  slain  the  Holy  One .-'  If  we  can 
conceive  any  one  in  whom  bitter  irreconcilable  hate 
would  be  at  once  natural  and  pardonable,  it  would  be 
in  him.     It  was  not  the  lapse  of  time  or  remoteness 

M 


St.Jollii  vii 


l62 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  [cHAP. 


St.John  viii. 


St.  John  ix. 


of  place,  or  the  spirit  of  party,  or  any  a  priori 
system  of  philosophy,  that  implicated  the  nation  in 
the  sin  of  individuals,  and  dried  up  in  part  the 
milk  of  human  kindness  in  a  breast  that  by  nature 
was  singularly  full  of  it.  That  which  possessed  this 
power  was  the  recollection  of  a  single  scene  enacted 
long  ago  upon  the  hill  of  Calvary.  To  the  Apostle 
the  darkness  that  hung  over  Jerusalem  was  never 
removed  ;  even  in  his  old  age,  and  in  the  peace  of 
his  Asiatic  home,  it  still  cast  its  shadow  over  his 
recording  page. 


We  observe  a  certain  rise  and  fall  in  the  accuracy 
of  the  Apostle's  recollections  ;  and  this  in  proportion 
as  he  has  some  definite,  visible,  external  fact,  to 
which  to  attach  them.  The  more  completely  his 
record  is  taken  up  with  discourse,  the  less  unre- 
servedly is  it  to  be  trusted — and  vice  versa.  Ac- 
cordingly in  chapter  ix,  where  the  scene  is  frequently 
shifted  and  the  dialogues  are  short  and  broken, 
we  have  admirably  fresh  and  lifelike  history.  The 
question  in  ver.  2,  '  Master,  who  did  sin,  this  man 
or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind,'  is  thoroughly 
true  to  Jewish  character  \  and  the  answer  agrees 
with  the  Synoptic  tradition.  The  continuation  pos- 
sibly may  not  have  belonged  to  this  context.  With 
regard  to  the  pool  '  Siloam,'  both  the  topography 
and  the  etymology  are  correct  ^.  The  scene,  when 
the  blind   man  returns  seeing  and  is  questioned  by 

^  This  is  abundantly  illustrated  ^  '  Missio  (aquarum) '  appears 
from  the  Talmud  ;  cf.  Lightfoot  and  to  be  the  proper  force  of  the  word 
Schottgen,  ad  loc.  (^Meyerj. 


\nn.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


163 


his  neighbours,  is  vividly  described.  So  too  is  the 
whole  of  that  which  follows,  when  the  Pharisees  come 
upon  the  stage.  We  may  accept  it  with  little  short 
of  absolute  credence.  If  the  opponents  of  miracles 
could  produce  a  single  Jewish  document,  in  which 
any  event,  known  not  to  have  happened,  was  described 
with  so  much  minuteness  and  verisimilitude,  then  it 
would  be  easier  to  agree  with  them. 

But,  as  it  is,  the  dilemma  seems  to  admit  of  no 
escape.  Either  we  must  believe  in  an  unparalleled 
natural  occurrence,  or  else  we  must  believe  in  an 
unparalleled  phenomenon  of  literary  composition.  If 
the  work  before  us  had  been  composed  in  Greece  four 
centuries  earlier,  or  if  it  had  been  composed  in  England, 
sixteen,  seventeen,  or  eighteen  centuries  later ;  or  if 
it  had  been  composed  by  a  person  of  flexible,  quick, 
versatile  mind  who  possessed  the  faculty  of  readily 
sinking  his  own  personality — it  would  not  have  been 
so  incredible.  But  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
stands  out  a  single  isolated  figure,  with  a  loftiness 
and  intensity  to  which  there  is  hardly  a  parallel  to 
be  found  in  history ;  with  a  force  of  character  that 
transmutes  and  transfuses  all  the  more  ductile  matter 
that  comes  within  its  range,  and  yet  with  a  certain 
childlike  simplicity  in  the  presence  of  external  facts. 
This  is  not  the  personality  of  great  writers  of  fiction 
in  any  country  or  time  :  least  of  all  is  it  the  per- 
sonality of  one  writing  under  a  feigned  name,  and 
asseverating  all  the  time  that  he  records  nothing  but 
that  which  he  has  'heard  and  seen.'  It  must  be 
remembered  too  that  if  it  is  a  fiction  it  is  not 
merely  a  fiction  that  would  fit  in  equally  well  to 
any  point  of  space  or  time.     It  is  a  fiction  which  is 

M  a 


St.  John  ix. 


Difficulties 
in  the  way 
of  treating 
the  Johan- 
nean 

miracles  as 
'  fiction.' 


Anachron- 
isms 
involved. 


164 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  [cHAP. 


St.  John  ix. 


laid  in  definite  localities,  and  in  the  midst  of  circum- 
stances and  a  circle  of  ideas  that  are  remarkably- 
definite.  It  is  written  after  a  series  of  tremendous 
changes  had  swept  away  all  the  landmarks  to  which 
it  might  have  been  affixed.  The  siege  and  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  together  with  the  rapid  progress 
and  organisation  of  Christianity,  caused  a  breach 
between  the  ages  before  and  behind  it,  which  could 
be  crossed  only  by  memory,  not  by  imagination. 
Those  who  deny  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Gospel  require  the  supposed  author  of  it  to  trans- 
gress the  conditions  of  his  age  and  position,  and  to 
throw  himself  back  into  another  set  of  conditions 
entirely  different  to  his  own.  They  do  not  indeed 
do  this  in  words ;  but  this  is,  as  I  have  tried  to 
show,  and  as  I  think  we  cannot  but  see,  because 
they  have  failed  to  take  in  by  far  the  larger  part 
of  the  phenomena.  The  hypothesis  of  Apostolic 
and  Johannean  authorship  satisfies  these,  while  it 
satisfies  also,  as  I  believe,  all  the  other  phenomena 
as  well.  It  gives  a  consistent  and  intelligible  account 
of  all  the  facts,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  no  other 
hypothesis  as  yet  propounded  has  done  so.  When 
we  come  to  look  at  them,  not  from  the  point  of 
view  of  a  system  obtained  per  saltnni  from  a  few 
scattered  particulars,  but  embracing  the  whole  of  the 
particulars  and  casting  away  all  preconceived  notions 
whatsoever,  then  we  gradually  find  that  a  single  and 
clear  conclusion  emerges,  that  the  Gospel  is  really 
the  work  of  the  Apostle  St.  John. 

Looking  back  over  the  ninth  chapter  in  the  light  of 
this  conclusion,  there  is  little  in  it  that  needs  comment 
or  explanation.     It  is  all  veritable  fact  and  history. 


vm.] 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


165 


The  means  by  which  the  miracle  took  place  we  cannot 
analyse.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  what  were  the 
actual  objective  facts,  without  attempting  to  penetrate 
behind  them.  Whether  the  miracle  was  caused  by  a 
suspension  of  existing  laws  or  the  introduction  of  a 
higher  one,  whether  it  was  an  acceleration  of  natural 
processes  or  a  new  and  unknown  process,  what  rela- 
tion the  natural  means  employed  may  have  had  to  it, 
we  have  no  data  to  determine ;  at  least  none  beyond 
the  fact  itself.  The  moment  we  leave  that  we  embark 
on  a  field  of  speculation  where  there  is  little  to  guide 
us,  and  where  indeed  we  do  not  need  to  be  guided. 
The  essential  point  is  that  the  miracle  was  connected 
with  the  Personality  of  Him  who  claimed  to  be  the 
Son  of  God.  Having  assumed  that,  we  have  a  '  ratio 
sufficiens '  for  all  that  is  required. 

We  need  not  read  into  the  blind  man's  confession 
in  ver.  35,  38  more  than  is  psychologically  natural 
and  probable.  It  would  necessarily  be  determined  by 
the  characteristics  of  the  Messianic  idea  as  it  was 
received  and  as  he  understood  it.  The  special  in- 
spiration that  Bp.  Ellicott  seems  to  introduce,  is  not 
in  accordance  with  what  we  know  respecting  God's 
dealings  with  man.  Inspiration,  as  we  gather  its 
nature  inductively,  is  a  heightening  of  natural  con- 
ditions, not  a  production  of  unnatural  ones.  But  why 
should  we  go  beyond  that  which  is  written  .''  The 
belief  of  the  blind  man  is  no  measure  for  ours. 

The  concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  contain  a 
saying  which  is  thoroughly  in  the  manner  of  the 
Synoptists,  and  has  a  parallel  as  regards  its  sub- 
stance in  Matt.  xi.  25,  26,  and  frequently  as  re- 
gards the  metaphor  'blind'  applied  to  the  Pharisees 


St.  John  ix. 

The  process 
of  miracles 
inscrutable. 


i66 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


St.  John  ix. 


(cf.  Matt.  XV.  14,  xxiii.  16,  17,  24).  It  also  supplies 
a  warranty  for  ascribing  a  typical  significance  to 
miracles. 

That  the  Synoptists  do  not  relate  this  miracle  of 
the  healing  of  the  blind  man  does  not  affect  its 
historical  character,  as  the  whole  of  these  events  in 
Judaea  are  equally  omitted  by  them.  Almost  all'  the 
miracles  contained  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  taken 
from  a  single  document,  but  they  derive  a  fictitious 
appearance  of  completeness  from  their  repetition  in  a 
triple  form.  The  vague  and  shifting  outlines  of  the 
Synoptic  narrative  allow  ample  room  for  all  the  in- 
sertions that  are  made  in  them  with  so  much  precision 
by  St.  John. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF  THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


THE  form  of  the  discourse  in  the  first  half  of 
chapter  x.  is  remarkable.  It  resembles  the 
Synoptic  parables,  but  not  exactly.  The  parable  is 
a  short  narrative,  which  is  kept  wholly  separate  from 
the  ideal  facts  which  it  signifies.  But  this  discourse 
is  not  a  narrative ;  and  the  figure  and  its  application 
run  side  by  side,  and  are  interwoven  with  one  another 
all  through.  It  is  an  extended  metaphor  rather  than 
a  parable.  If  we  are  to  give  it  an  accurate  name  we 
should  be  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  wider  term 
'  allegoiy.' 

This,  and  the  parallel  passage  in  chapter  xv,  are 
the  only  instances  of  allegory  in  the  Gospels.  They 
take  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  place  which  parables 
hold  with  the  Synoptists.  The  Synoptists  have  no 
allegories  as  distinct  from  parables.  The  fourth 
Evangelist  has  no  parables  as  a  special  form  of 
allegory.  What  are  we  to  infer  from  this  .-*  The 
parables  certainly  are  original  and  genuine.  Does 
it  follow  that  the  allegories  are  not  ? 

We  notice,  first,  that  along  with  the  change  of  form 
there  is  a  certain  change  of  subject.  The  parables 
generally  turn  round  the  ground   conception  of  the 


St.  John  X. 

VV.  I-2I. 


Allegory 
and  parable. 


i68 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


kingdom  of  heaven.  They  express  its  nature,  its 
constitution,  its  laws,  its  spirit,  and  if  we  may  say  so, 
its  history.  But  though  it  was  always  understood  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  centred  in  the  Person  of  its 
King,  the  Synoptic  parables  do  not  enlarge  on  the 
relation  which  He  bears  to  the  separate  members. 
We  have  seen  however  in  St.  John  how  much  more 
this  particular  side  of  the  Evangelic  teaching  is 
thrown  into  relief.  We  have  seen  that  it  was  by  no 
means  entirely  wanting  in  the  Synoptists.  There  are 
several  isolated  sayings  which  relate  to  it  directly. 
The  miracles,  if  we  understand  them  rightly,  have 
a  typical  reference  to  it.  Some  of  the  parables  indeed 
border  upon  it  nearly — such  as  that  which  contains 
the  history  of  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom  under 
the  figure  of  the  wicked  husbandmen  ;  or  again,  the 
marriage-feast.  But  though  in  these  the  royal  dignity 
of  the  Son  is  incidentally  put  forward,  there  is  nothing 
which  expresses  so  closely  and  directly  the  personal 
relation  of  the  Messiah  to  the  community  of  believers, 
collectively  and  individually,  as  these  two  'allegories' 
from  St.  John.  Their  form  seems  in  an  especial  manner 
suited  to  their  subject  matter,  which  is  a  fixed,  per- 
manent and  simple  relation, — and  a  relation,  not  a 
history  of  successive  states,  of  growth  and  develop- 
ment, or  a  description  of  particular  acts  and  phases 
of  conduct  or  feeling.  The  form  of  the  Johannean 
allegories  is  at  least  an  appropriate  one. 

We  notice  next  that  even  with  the  Synoptists  the 
use  of  the  parable  is  not  rigid.  All  do  not  conform 
precisely  to  the  same  type.  There  are  some,  like 
the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  the  good  Samaritan, 
and  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  which  'give  direct 


IX.] 


THE   GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


169 


patterns  for  action  \'  and  are  not  therefore  in  the 
strict  sense  parables.  They  arc  not  parables  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  Barren  Fig-tree,  or  the 
Prodigal  Son,  or  the  Ten  Virgins,  or  the  Labourers 
in  the  Vineyard  are  parables.  They  do  not  repre- 
sent God's  action  under  the  figure  of  human  action, 
or  circumstances  and  conditions  of  human  life  in 
figures  borrowed  from  external  nature,  but  they  are 
examples  of  conduct  and  character  held  up  directly 
for  avoidance  or  imitation.  If,  then,  the  parable 
admits  so  much  deviation  on  the  one  side,  may  it 
not  also  on  the  other .-' 

Lastly,  we  have  to  notice  the  parallels  to  this  par- 
ticular figure  of  the  Good  Shepherd  that  are  found  in 
the  Synoptists.  These  are  indeed  abundant.  We 
should  have  almost  a  direct  parallel  in  the  parable 
of  the  Lost  Sheep,  if  it  were  not  somewhat  ambiguous 
who  is  meant  by  the  Shepherd — though  from  the 
description  of  the  Messiah's  mission,  '  I  am  not  sent 
but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,'  we  might 
be  tempted  to  think  that  a  Messianic  reference  was 
contained  in  it.  In  any  case  this  appears  in  Matt.  ix. 
36  ('  But  when  He  saw  the  multitudes.  He  was  moved 
with  compassion  on  them,  because  they  fainted,  and 
were  scattered  abroad,  as  sheep  having  no  shepherd'), 
which,  when  taken  with  Matt.  xi.  28,  29  ('  Come  unto 
Me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden'),  gives 
almost  an  exact  parallel  to  the  Johannean  allegory. 

It  has  been  observed  however  that  in  St.  John  we 
have  really  two  separate  parables  mixed  up  together, 
the  key  to  which  is  given  in  the  one  case  by  the 
expression   '  I  am  the  good  shepherd,'  in  the  other, 

'  Cf.  Westcott,  Inir.  p.  456. 


St.  John  X. 


Synoptic 
parallels. 


lyo 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


St.  John  X. 


'  I  am  the  door.'  For  this  we  have  fewer  parallels 
in  the  Synoptists,  though  the  figure  is  not  unknown 
to  them,  e.g.  '  the  strait  gate  and  the  narrow  way,' 
and  '  the  wide  gate  and  the  broad  way'  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  There  the  difference  corresponds  to 
that  which  we  usually  remark  between  the  Synoptists 
and  St.  John.  For  nearer  parallels  of  sense  as  well 
as  of  words  we  must  go  to  St.  Paul :  Eph.  ii.  i8 
('Through  Him  we  both  have  access  by  one  Spirit 
unto  the  Father') ;  Rom.  v.  2  ('  By  whom  we  both  have 
access  by  faith  into  this  grace  wherein  we  stand'). 

The  general  conclusion  at  which  we  should  arrive 
from  these  considerations  would  seem  to  be,  that 
there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  saying,  that  the 
discourse  contained  in  the  first  half  of  this  tenth 
chapter  is  otherwise  than  authentic  and  original  in 
its  main  outline  both  as  to  form  and  matter.  In 
the  case  of  the  first  figure,  that  of  the  Good  Shepherd, 
we  can  trace  a  gradual  progression  leading  up  to  it 
naturally  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  themselves.  In 
regard  to  the  second  figure  this  is  wanting :  but  it 
is  vouched  for  by  its  exact  parallelism  to  the  first. 
In  no  case  does  the  Evangelist  overstep  the  circle  of 
Apostolic  teaching,  or  the  legitimate  and  necessary 
inference  from  premises  that  the  Synoptists  supply. 

The  peculiarities  of  form  in  this  discourse  are  prob- 
ably also  in  the  main  original.  But  supposing  that 
they  are  not,  the  kind  of  modification  which  they 
exhibit  suggests  much  more  the  unconscious  action 
of  an  active  mind  upon  matter  that  had  been  once 
faithfully  committed  to  it,  than  the  conscious  inven- 
tion or  deliberate  transformation  of  a  forger.  Why 
does   the    author   keep   so   near   to   the    old    lines .-' 


THE  GOOD  SHErUERD. 


171 


Having  diverged  from  them  so  much,  why  should 
he  not  have  diverged  more  ?  It  is  to  me  far  more 
probable  that  he  has  been  restrained  by  a  fund  of 
positive  indissoluble  memories,  than  that  he  is  con- 
sulting proprieties  of  composition.  The  change,  so 
far  as  there  is  a  change,  is  the  spontaneous  and 
natural  development  of  a  basis  of  fact,  not  the  con- 
scious construction  of  fiction. 

The  first  statement  of  the  allegory  in  verses  1-6  is 
extremely  tender  and  beautiful.  If  the  words  are 
in  part  those  of  an  Apostle,  they  are  the  words  of 
that  Apostle  'whom  Jesus  loved,'  and  upon  whom, 
more  than  upon  any  of  the  rest,  the  mantle  of  his 
Master  had  fallen. 

Ver.  8  has  caused  some  difficulty.  '  All  that  ever 
came  before  Me  were  thieves  and  robbers.'  These 
are  not  to  be  interpreted  too  definitely  of  false  mes- 
siahs,  traces  of  whom  before  these  words  were  spoken 
are  hardly  sufficiently  distinct  ^.  They  are  exactly 
the  'wolves  in  sheeps'  clothing'  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  It  is  possible  that  the  form  of  the 
saying  may  have  been  affected  by  the  Apostle's 
actual  recollection  of  false  prophets.  The  Tipo  l\i.ov  is 
difficult  to  understand,  but  is  possibly  not  original. 
And  the  Apostle,  looking  back  over  a  long  life,  need 
not  have  obser\^ed  an  absolutely  accurate  chronology. 
Still  there  may  be  a  reference  to  personages  like 
Herod  and  Judas  the  Gaulonite,  who  seemed  or 
attempted  to  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  but  in 
a  wholly  wrong  way.  We  cannot  tell  how  far  the 
Messianic  expectations  may  have  been  worked  upon 
by  political  adventurers. 

'  Cf.  Meyer  ad  loc. ;  but  compare  also  Keim,  i.  244,  245. 


St.  John  X. 


172 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


St.  John  X. 

The  Johan- 
iiean  uni- 

\'ersalism. 


The  universalism  of  ver.  16  ('other  sheep  I  have'), 
which  is  so  often  quoted  against  the  Gospel,  seems 
rather  to  be  exactly  of  the  kind  of  which  we  have 
abundant  evidence  in  the  Synoptists :  e.  g.  in  Matt, 
viii.  II,  12  ('Many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
from  the  west ') ;  Luke  xiii.  28,  29 — according  to 
Dr.  Holtzmann,  from  the  Ao'yta  of  St.  Matthew  ;  Matt, 
xiii.  24-30,  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  from  the  same 
document;  Matt.  xxv.  31  ('Before  Him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations');  Matt,  xxviii.  19  ('Go  and 
teach  all  nations ').  A  certain  precedence  is  assigned 
to  Israel,  but  the  inclusion  of  the  Gentiles  is  dis- 
tinctly contemplated.  There  can  be  the  less  objec- 
tion to  the  verse  before  us,  as  it  is  placed  by  the 
Evangelist  in  the  latest  portion  of  the  public  ministry, 
when  similar  utterances  were  doubtless  plentiful. 
Neither  can  I  see  a  sound  objection  in  the  fact  that 
the  Apostle  St.  John  belonged  at  first  to  the  Juda- 
izing  party.  The  exclusiveness  of  this  party  has 
been  much  exaggerated  :  but,  supposing  the  Apostle 
to  have  held  all  that  is  attributed  to  him,  by  the 
time  he  wrote  the  Gospel  the  success  of  the  heathen 
mission  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  could  not 
fail  to  modify  his  views,  and  to  revive  in  him  a 
number  of  latent  reminiscences,  convincing  him  that 
the  more  liberal  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  had  received 
in  advance  his  Master's  sanction.  If  other  Apostles, 
e.  g.  St.  Matthew,  went  through  this  process,  there 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  also  attribute  it  to 
St.  John.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever 
that  the  evangelisation  of  the  Gentiles,  even  if  not 
directly  commanded,  was  an  immediate  and  inevit- 
able consequence  of  the  teaching  of  Christ.     On  the 


IX.] 


THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


173 


Other  hand,  the  amount  and  nature  of  St.  John's 
universahsm  must  not  be  mistaken.  As  laid  down 
in  this  verse  it  is  not  only  consistent  with,  but  it 
implies,  a  privileged  position  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews.  And  that  this  is  really  maintained  by  the 
Apostle  is  proved  by  iv.  22,  i.  11,  viii.  29-40,  &c. 
Reckless  statements  have  been  made  with  reference 
to  this  supposed  universahsm ;  but  it  is  found  to 
be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  Apostolic  teaching 
generally,  and  so  far  as  it  represents  a  development, 
it  is  such  a  development  as  would  be  caused  simply 
by  time  and  the  progress  of  events.  The  Apostle's 
foot  is  firmly  planted  in  the  old  dispensation.  The 
new  has,  as  it  were,  grown  up  round  him,  but  he 
holds  fast  to  the  organic  connection  between  them. 
Abraham  prophesied  of  Christ ;  Moses,  by  the  gift 
of  manna,  by  the  brazen  serpent,  by  the  stricken 
rock,  foreshadowed  Him.  Moses  too  was  a  lawgiver, 
and  his  laws  are  not  to  be  broken.  Salvation  is  of 
the  Jews.  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David.  He 
is  the  Jewish  Messiah,  and  He  fulfils  the  Jewish 
prophecies.  To  the  Jews  He  first  directs  His  call ; 
and  it  is  only  when  they  do  not  receive  it  that  He 
turns  to  the  Gentiles.  Yet  even  so  they  are  the 
first  occupants  of  the  fold,  and  the  others  are  but 
gathered  in  to  them.  '  Many  shall  come  from  the 
east  and  from  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.'  It  is  the  same  thing 
in  other  words. 

The  conception  of  verses  17,  iH,  though  not  the 
expression,  is  Pauline  (cf  Phil.  ii.  5-1 1),  or  rather 
Apostolic  (cf  Acts  ii.  23,  24;  v.  '>,i),  with  the  ex- 
ception  that   here   the   Resurrection    is   regarded  as 


St.  John  X. 


174 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


St.  John  X. 


vv.  22-42. 


The  Feast  of 
Dedicatior. 


self-caused  \  The  voluntary  nature  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  and  its  relation  to  the  will  of  the  Father  is 
brought  out  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  especially  in 
Matt.  xxvi.  39  (parallels).  It  is  possible  that  these 
verses,  or  the  saying  to  which  they  correspond,  did  not 
originally  belong  to  this  context,  but  were  suggested 
by  the  conclusion  of  ver.  11  and  ver.  15.  Again,  the 
comments  of  the  people  are  given  in  a  very  natural 
form.  Up  to  this  point  the  events  recorded  appear 
to  belong  to  the  visit  occasioned  by  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  in  chap.  vii.  The  last  day  of  this  feast 
would  fall,  according  to  Wieseler's  calculations,  on 
October  19 -.  But  here  there  is  a  break  in  the  nar- 
rative, and  we  are  carried  in  ver.  22  to  the  Feast 
of  Dedication  (December  20,  Wieseler),  when  our 
Lord  is  still  or  again  in  Jerusalem. 

The  feast  of  Dedication  (Encaenia)  was  of  com- 
paratively recent  institution,  commemorating  the  puri- 
fication of  the  temple  by  Judas  Maccabaeus  from 
the  profanations  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  It  is  not 
a  feast  the  name  of  which  would  be  likely  to  occur 
to  any  one  but  a  Jew  ;  still  less  the  accurate  note 
of  place  in  ver.  23  ('  And  Jesus  walked  in  the  temple 
in  Solomon's  porch ').  Both  these  verses  proclaim 
the  eyewitness.  So  does  the  admirable  question  in 
the  verse  following.  Attracted  by  His  teaching  and 
His  miracles,  but  repelled  by  His  persistent  refusal 


^  As  Meyer  justly  observes,  the 
difference  is  that  between  the  •  causa 
efficiens '  and  the  '  causa  appre- 
hendens.'  '  Das  Wieder?ifi&??ie«  des 
Lebens,  wozu  der  gottmenschliche 
Christus  ermachtigt  ist,  die  Wieder- 
gahe  voraussetzt.  Diese  Wieder- 
gabe  von  Seiten  Gottes,  durch 
vvelche  Christus   ^aioTroi7]6eis  irvev- 


fjiari  wird  (i  Pet.  iii.  19),  und  jene 
i^ovaia,  welche  Chiistus  von  Gott 
hat,  sind  die  beiden  I^actoren  der 
Auferstehung,  von  welcher  aber 
der  erstere  die  Causa  efficiens,  die 
e^ovaia  Christi  hingegen,  die  Causa 
apprehendens  ist.' — Comm.  p.  405. 

^  Compare    the    tables,    Chron. 
Synop.  p.  435,  Eng.  Tr. 


IX.] 


THE   GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


175 


to  assume  the  Messianic  character  such  as  they  under- 
stood it,  the  Jews  ask  Jesus  directly,  '  How  long 
dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt?'  (r?/r  V^i'X'V  '/M<^^  atpeti', 
'  keep  us  in  suspense ')  '  if  thou  be  the  Christ,  tell 
us  plainly.'  It  is  such  a  question  as  at  this  period 
of  the  ministry  was  inevitable,  and  the  language  in 
which  it  is  expressed  exactly  represents  the  real 
difficulties  and  hesitation  that  the  Jews  would  feel. 

Our  Lord  is  made  to  answer  now  as  elsewhere  in 
St.  John  by  appealing  to  His  miracles.  And  He 
explains  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  also  as  elsewhere 
in  St.  John  by  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  and 
Election.  This  again  is  one  of  those  few  marked 
recurrent  themes  which  seem  to  displace  so  much 
of  the  rich  ethical  material  of  the  Synoptists.  We 
have  hardly  yet  had  a  single  discourse  in  w^iich  it 
does  not  occur;  in  the  prologue,  i.  12,  13;  in  the 
discourse  with  Nicodemus,  i.  3  {avinQn^  '  from  above ') ; 
the  testimony  of  John  iii.  27  ;  the  discourse  after 
the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  ver.  21  ;  that  in 
the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  in  the  two  paren- 
theses, vi.  37-40,  and  44  ;  it  is  alluded  to  again  in 
ver.  65,  and  in  the  discourse  we  have  been  discussing, 
viii.  44,  47  ;  it  occurs  also  in  the  later  discourses. 

This  is,  as  we  have  seen.  Apostolic  doctrine  both 
Pauline  and  Petrine,  but  the  nearest  approximation 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  the  much  less  dogmatic 
expression  ^revealed'  ('unto  Peter,'  Matt.  xvi.  17; 
'unto  babes,'  Matt.  xi.  25).  We  are  led  therefore 
to  think  that,  though  the  doctrine  may  be  founded 
upon  sayings  of  our  Lord  Himself,  still  these  were 
hardly  so  frequent  or  so  prominent  as  would  appear 
from   St.  John.     And    this   supposition  is  confirmed 


St.  John  X. 


The 

doctrine  of 
Election. 


176 

St.  John  X. 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


The 

Johanneau 

Christology. 


when  we  observe  that  most  of  the  passages  in  question 
have  but  little  to  do  with  their  context.  They  are 
more  Hke  the  reflections  of  an  aged  Apostle  medi- 
tating on  the  wonderful  course  of  the  events  through 
which  he  had  passed,  than  the  practical  and  ethical, 
or  even  the  theological  teaching  of  the  Gospels.  Still, 
in  the  verses  before  us,  there  is  a  natural  reference 
to  the  preceding  parable  or  allegory  ;  just  as  in  vi. 
65  there  was  an  allusion  to  the  previous  discourse, 
which  can  hardly  have  had  other  than  a  historical 
basis ;  it  is  possible  therefore  that  these  two  may 
be  amongst  the  passages  that  come  nearest  to  the 
original. 

The  doctrine  of  Predestination  and  Election  is  joined 
with  another  Johannean  doctrine,  that  of  the  unity  of 
the  Son  with  the  Father.  This  too  derives  additional 
probability  from  the  place  which  it  holds  at  this  ad- 
vanced period  of  the  history,  and  similar  claims  cer- 
tainly formed  the  ground  of  accusation  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  We  notice,  however,  that  in  spite  of  this 
high  Christology,  St.  John  does  not  suppress  the 
phraseology  of  subordination  which  is  found  alike  in. 
all  the  Apostolic  writings.  The  theology  of  the  pro- 
logue does  not  intrude  into  the  historical  portions  of 
the  Gospel.  There  we  find  a  different  set  of  con- 
ceptions, which,  if  they  end  in  a  conclusion  that  the 
Evangelist  himself  regards  as  equivalent,  reach  it  by 
a  different  channel'.     The  Son  is  sent  by  the  Father, 

»  So  Phil.  ii.  9  by  the  side  of  8 ;  8  in  Jahrb.  f.  d.  T.  1868,  iii.     [Dr. 

Col.   i.   15,   h   by  the   side   of  a;  Keim's  latest  position  is  that  the 

Eph.  i.  20  by  the  side  of  21,  22  ;  Evangelist  contradicts  not  so  much 

I  Cor.  iii.  23,  xi.  3,  xv.  28;  Acts  the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  himself,  ii. 

ii.  36,  V.  31  ;  Rev.  iii.  12,  14,  22,  394,  395.     The  fuller  discussion  of 

&c.    Compare  Schultz  on  Rom.  ix.  this  must  be  reserved.] 


IX.] 


THE   GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


m 


as  the  prophets  were  sent  by  Him.  But  the  Son 
is  sent  in  a  pecuHar  and  unique  sense.  The  perfect 
love  and  perfect  obedience,  the  absolute  surrender  of 
His  own  will  to  that  of  the  Father,  make  Him  in 
return  a  peculiar  object  of  the  Father's  love,  and  the 
select  organ  of  the  Divine  revelation.  He  is  endowed 
with  the  full  Messianic  powers  and  prerogatives,  more 
especially  with  the  power  over  life  and  judgment.  He 
gives  life,  both  spiritual  and  physical,  to  whom  He 
will.  He  judges  men  now,  and  will  judge  them  here- 
after. By  the  symbolical  significance  of  His  miracles 
He  establishes  the  plenipotentiary  character  of  His 
mission.  It  is  indeed  the  Father  Himself  who  works 
them  (xiv.  lo),  dwelling  and  abiding  in  Him  as  the 
source  of  spiritual  life  (vi.  ^y).  Thus  the  Son,  both  by 
His  works  and  by  His  person,  is  a  revelation  of  the 
Father,  and  no  further  revelation  is  needed. 

The  practical  conclusion  from  this  is,  that  '  all  men 
should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father.  He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth 
not  the  Father  that  sent  Him.' 

But  the  origin  and  source,  as  well  of  the  unique 
commission  which  the  Son  bears,  as  of  the  unique 
honours  which  are  to  be  paid  to  Him,  lies  in  His 
perfect  ethical  union  with  the  Father,  His  absolute 
self-abnegation,  and  the  love  which  the  Father  bears 
to  Him  (v.  20 ;  xviii.  23,  26). 

In  this  the  fourth  Gospel  is  essentially  at  one  with 
the  Synoptists,  and  with  the  Apostolic  writers  gene- 
rally. By  the  title  '  Son  of  God'  the  same  ethical  and 
spiritual  Homoousia  is  indicated.  And  in  the  voice 
which  accompanies  the  Baptism  and  the  Transfigu- 
ration (Matt.  iii.  17;  xvii.  5)  it  is  alleged  as  the  ground 

N 


St.  John  X. 


178 


THE  ALLEGORY  OF 


[chap. 


St.  John  X. 


vv.  34-36- 


of  the  Messianic  commission,  just  as  in  Phil.  ii.  9,  &c. 
it  is  alleged  as  the  ground  of  the  subsequent  exaltation. 

Throughout  the  New  Testament  the  Son  receives 
His  commission,  His  powers,  His  glory  from  the 
Father.  He  is  sent  by  Him,  He  is  raised  from  the 
dead  by  Him,  and  by  Him  exalted  to  His  own  right 
hand.  And  therefore  there  is  a  sense  in  which  St. 
John  too,  like  the  other  New  Testament  writers, 
would  accept  the  words,  'My  Father  is  greater  than 
I '  (xiv.  28),  and  in  this  chapter,  '  My  Father  is  greater 
than  all' 

This  conception  is  strictly  borne  out  by  the  remark- 
able argumcntiim  ad  hominem  in  vv.  34-36.  In  answer 
to  the  charge  of  blasphemy  incurred  by  claiming  unity 
with  God,  Jesus  appeals  to  the  language  of  Scripture 
in  Ps.  Ixxxii.  Certain  unjust  judges,  understood  here 
of  the  Israelitish  judges  as  representatives  of  the  the- 
ocracy, are  there  called  '  gods.'  A  fortiori  then,  if  they 
could  without  blasphemy  receive  this  title,  much  more 
could  He,  whom  the  Father  had  sanctified  and  sent 
into  the  world,  designate  Himself  as  the  'Son  of  God.' 
It  is  noticeable  that  the  accusation  of  the  Jews  is  not 
admitted  exactly  as  it  is  made ;  but  that  the  term 
'  Son  of  God '  is  substituted  in  the  reply.  The  pre- 
dicate Qdo^  is  applied  to  the  Son  in  the  prologue  i.  i, 
and  also  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  but  always  as  a  predicate^. 
If  we  are  to  accept  the  reading  ixovoyevrjs  Qeos  in  i.  18, 
it  is  a  dira^  X^yojxivov  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
argument,  though  essentially  Jewish,  is  yet  not  without 
a  universal  value,  because  it  is  based  upon  the  reali- 
sation of  the  theocracry  of  which  the  previous  history 

1  Compare  a  passage  quoted  from  Epiphanius  (the  synod  of  Ancyra) 
by  Professor  Lightfoot,  Conimenfary  on  Philippiatis,  p.  no. 


IX.] 


THE   GOOD  SHEPHERD. 


179 


and  constitution  of  the  Jews  had  been  an  imperfect 
and  typical  embodiment.  If  the  Jews  were  not  satisfied 
with  this  argument  from  Scripture,  they  ought  to  be 
by  the  argument  from  miracles,  especially  by  miracles 
so  distinctively  Messianic  in  their  character. 

The  chapter  ends  with  a  note  of  place  which  is 
evidently  and  certainly  historical.  No  forger  would 
ever  have  thought  of  the  periphrasis  '  where  John  at 
first  baptized.'  '  And  Jesus  went  away  again  beyond 
Jordan  into  the  place  w^iere  John  at  first  baptized  ; 
and  there  He  abode.  And  many  resorted  unto  Him, 
and  said,  John  did  no  miracle :  but  all  things  that 
John  spake  of  this  man  were  true.'  It  would  be  im- 
possible to  find  a  stronger  incidental  proof  that  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  had  been  originally  a  disciple 
of  the  Baptist,  or  at  least  his  contemporary,  and  also 
that  he  is  writing  of  things  that  he  had  heard  and 
seen.  A  Gnostic,  writing  in  Asia  Minor,  even  though 
he  had  come  into  relation  with  '  disciples  of  John,' 
would  not  have  introduced  the  Baptist  in  this  way. 
In  circles  that  had  been  affected  by  the  Baptist's 
teaching,  and  were  hesitating  whether  they  should 
attach  themselves  to  Jesus,  this  is  precisely  the  sort 
of  comment  that  would  be  heard.  Very  likely  the 
Evangelist  may  be  wishing  to  commend  Christianity 
to  the  disciples  of  John  in  the  district  in  which  he  is 
moving ;  but  he  would  not  have  done  so  thus,  unless 
the  suggestion  had  come  from  facts  that  he  actually 
remembered. 


St.  John  X. 


vv.  39-42- 


N  2 


CHAPTER    X. 


THE   RAISING   OF   LAZARUS. 


St.  John  xi. 


Historical 
evidence  for 
the  reality 
of  miracles. 


IT  is  right  that  we  should  bear  in  mind  the  impres- 
sion which  we  carry  over  with  us  from  the  end 
of  the  last  chapter,  now  that  we  come  face  to  face 
with  the  one  great,  and  I  may  say,  crucial  question 
of  the  Gospel — the  Raising  of  Lazarus.  I  cannot 
estimate  the  amount  of  conviction  produced  in  the 
reader  by  the  argument  so  far  as  it  has  gone  ;  but 
my  own  conviction,  I  confess,  is  strong.  The  theo- 
logical, the  literary,  the  historical  data  have  all 
hitherto  seemed  to  attest  the  Gospel  as  a  work  of  the 
Apostle.  On  any  other  hypothesis  it  is  difficult,  I 
think  impossible,  to  account  for  them.  Are  all  these 
threads  of  proof  to  be  suddenly  unravelled,  and  the 
whole  work  undone,  because  we  are  brought  into  the 
presence  of  a  fact,  which,  if  a  fact,  is  only  explicable 
as  a  miracle  ?  That  will  depend,  it  is  true,  partly 
upon  the  philosophical  conception  which  the  reader 
may  have  formed  as  to  the  antecedent  improbability 
of  miracles.  But  the  subject  ought  not  to  be  dis- 
missed until  some  conception  has  also  been  formed  of 
the  weight  of  evidence  for  miracles  from  other  sources. 
'  John  did  no  miracles  :  but  all  things  that  John 
spake  of  this  man  were  true.'  If  legend  has  been 
active    upon   the   history   of   Christ,  how   is   it  that 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


18I 


it  has  left  untouched  the  history  of  the  Baptist  which 
is  so  intimately  bound  up  with  it  ?  In  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  it  is  not  one  document  or  one  set  of 
traditions  alone  that  includes  miracles,  but  all  without 
exception.  The  mass  of  the  Synoptic  literature  can 
be  proved  to  have  been  in  existence  at  the  time  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  At  that  time  it  appears 
in  such  a  state  of  literary  development  as  to  throw 
back  the  date  of  original  composition  considerably 
earlier.  The  earliest  documents  of  the  Acts— docu- 
ments which  still  present  the  politico-theocratic  hopes 
in  their  crudest  form  (Acts  i.  6,  cf.  Luke  xxiv.  21), 
and  are  characterised  by  the  most  rudimentary 
Christology — bear  witness  to  the  same  belief.  Some 
of  the  miracles  related  in  the  Synoptists  are  of  the 
most  stubborn  character,  and  refuse  to  yield  as  well 
to  the  rationalizing  as  to  the  mythical  hypothesis. 
They  are  connected  with  sayings  that  bear  the 
certain  stamp  of  genuineness,  e.g.  in  the  case  of  the 
Syrophoenician  woman,  the  paralytic,  the  centurion's 
son.  The  miracles  are  referred  to  in  discourses  which 
have  never  been  disputed,  e.g.  Matt.  xi.  20,  23,  xii.  24. 
They  are  assumed  in  narratives  like  the  Temptation, 
which  have  a  deeper  meaning  than  any  of  which  the 
Evangelists  were  conscious,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
the  product  of  invention.  The  great  facts  of  the 
Resurrection  and  Ascension  are  assumed  in  the 
earliest  epistles  from  the  year  52  onwards.  The 
possession  of  miraculous  powers  is  treated  by  St. 
Paul  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  he  claims  to  have 
performed  miracles  himself  ^ 

Putting  all  this  accumulated  mass  of  historical  proof 
'  Cf.  Rom.  XV.  19;   I  Cor.  xii.  lo,  28;  2  Cor.  xii.  12;  Gal.  iii.  5. 


St.  John  xi. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xi. 


1-46. 


together,  with  the  observations  that  have  already  been 
made  upon  the  exceptional  nature  of  the  Christian 
miracles  themselves,  the  ease  with  which  they  admit 
of  a  typical  and  spiritual  application,  and  the  peculiar 
relation  which  they  seem  to  hold  as  a  pragmatic 
clirnax  to  the  teaching  ;  and  further,  looking  to  the 
unique  and  transcendent  phenomenon  presented  by 
the  personality  of  Jesus  Himself,  he  will  be  a  bold 
man  who  should  ignore  all  this  positive  and  sub- 
sidiary weight  of  proof  in  deference  to  an  a  priori 
conception  of  incredibility,  which  on  philosophical 
grounds  alone  is  far  from  certainly  tenable.  I  prefer 
to  abide  by  the  ordinary  canons  of  historical  evi- 
dence ;  and  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  these,  the 
evidence  for  miracles  is  abundant  and  conclusive. 

Not  least  so  is  it  with  reference  to  the  miracle 
before  us — the  Raising  of  Lazarus.  An  unbiassed 
reader  coming  to  this  narrative,  and  putting  its 
miraculous  character  for  the  moment  out  of  sight, 
would,  I  think,  naturally  conclude  that  it  was  history 
of  a  very  high  order,  and  that  it  bore  all  the  marks 
and  signs  of  having  been  written  by  a  person  who 
had  been  present  at  the  occurrence  himself.  The 
narrative  begins  with  much  circumstantiality.  We 
are  introduced  fully  to  the  personages  who  are  to 
act  in  the  drama  that  follows.  A  minute  touch  is 
thrown  into  the  sister's  message,  '  Lord,  he  whom 
Thou  lovest  is  sick ;'  and  this  is  explained,  '  Now 
Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and  Lazarus.' 
'When  He  had  heard  therefore  that  he  was  sick, 
He  abode  two  days  still  in  the  same  place  where  He 
was.  Then  after  that  saith  He  to  His  disciples.  Let 
us  go  into  Judaea  again.'     The  disciples  naturally  try 


X.] 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


183 


to  dissuade  their  Master  from  returning  into  the  midst !  St.  John  xi. 
of  danger  that  He  had  but  lately  escaped.  The 
answer  breathes  that  calm  divine  resignation  to  the 
Father's  will,  which  was  soon  to  undergo  so  sharp  a 
trial :  '  Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in  the  day  ?  Is 
not  My  time  appointed  ?  When  it  comes  it  will 
come,  and  I  shall  fall  into  the  hands  of  My  enemies, 
but  till  then  their  malice  will  spend  itself  in  vain.' 
Presently  our  Lord  breaks  to  the  disciples  in  a  figure 
the  death  of  Lazarus,  and  when  they  fail  to  under- 
stand Him,  He  tells  them  plainly  Lazarus  is  dead. 
He  motions  to  go,  and  Thomas,  brave  and  impulsive 
though  desponding,  springs  to  His  side,  '  Let  us  also 
go,  that  we  may  die  with  him.' 

They  find  upon  their  arrival  that  Lazarus  has  lain 
in  the  grave  four  days.  '  Now  Bethany,'  we  are  told, 
*  was  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  furlongs  off.* 
Thus  the  fact  is  accounted  for  that  there  were  many 
Jews  there  who  had  come  to  condole  with  the  sisters 
for  the  loss  of  their  brother.  The  news  comes  that 
Jesus  is  near,  and  Martha — as  we  should  gather  from 
St.  Luke — the  more  energetic  and  less  sensitive  of 
the  two,  rises  and  goes  to  meet  Him,  while  Mary 
remains  broken  down  by  her  sorrow  in  the  house. 
A  very  natural  and  beautiful  dialogue  follows,  in 
which  we  notice  especially  the  way  in  which  Martha 
puts  off  the  questions  that  are  addressed  to  her. 
The  first  is  implied  in  the  assurance,  '  Thy  brother 
shall  rise  again.'  To  this  she  answers,  '  I  know  that 
he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day.' 
And  then,  when  those  lofty  words  are  spoken,  '  I  am 
the  resurrection  and  the  life,'  and  she  is  asked  if  she 
believes  them,  she  covers  her  failure  to  understand 


184 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xi. 


them  with  the  confession  which  was  by  this  time 
common  among  the  disciples,  'Yea,  Lord,  I  believe 
that  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which 
should  come  into  the  world.'  The  readiness  and  un- 
embarrassed vigour  of  her  answers,  combined  with  a 
not  very  profound  intelligence,  is  all  characteristic. 
So  is  the  haste  with  which  she  returns  and  fetches 
Mary,  who  rouses  herself  by  an  effort  to  follow  her 
sister.  Jesus  and  His  disciples  have  been  by  some 
cause  or  other  delayed,  and  they  are  still  at  the  place 
where  Martha  met  Him.  Mary  no  sooner  sees  Him 
than  she  falls  down  at  His  feet  (we  are  not  told  that 
Martha  did  this),  and  exclaims  in  words  similar  to 
those  of  Martha,  '  Lord,  if  Thou  hadst  been  here,  my 
brother  had  not  died.'  But,  unlike  Martha,  this  is 
all  she  can  say.  She  is  not  ready  with  any  profes- 
sions or  protestations.  Her  heart  is  full,  and  it  is 
with  difficulty  that  she  can  speak  at  all.  'When 
Jesus  therefore  saw  her  weeping,  and  the  Jews  also 
weeping  which  came  with  her.  He  groaned  in  spirit 
and  w^as  troubled,  and  said,  Where  have  ye  laid  him  .'* 
They  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  come  and  see,  Jesus 
wept.'  Once  more  He  is  heard  to  groan,  and  they  come 
to  the  grave.  We  notice  that  the  saying  in  ver.  39  is  ap- 
propriately put  into  the  mouth  of  Martha.  The  stone 
is  taken  away,  and  now  the  weeping  and  the  groaning, 
by  which  even  the  Saviour  Himself  had  been  wrung, 
are  hushed.  A  moment's  prayer,  and  then  He  cries 
with  a  loud  voice,  '  Lazarus,  come  forth.  And  he 
that  was  dead  came  forth,  bound  hand  and  foot  with 
graveclothes :  and  his  face  was  bound  about  with  a 
napkin.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Loose  him,  and  let 
him  go.' 


X.] 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


185 


St.   John  xi. 


The  charac- 
ter ot"  Mary 
and  Martha. 


Such  is  the  simple  ending  of  a  narrative  that  the 
highest  art  could  not  excel.  Is  there  any  other  art 
than  the  unconscious  touch  of  nature  and  truth  ?  One 
most  remarkable  feature  in  the  history  is  the  coinci- 
dence between  the  characters  of  Mary  and  Martha  as 
depicted  here  and  in  St.  Luke.  If  it  is  a  designed 
coincidence,  if  these  characters  are  altogether  a  ficti- 
tious creation,  we  can  only  say  with  Meyer  that 
instead  of  a  historical  miracle  we  have  presented  to  us 
a  literary  miracle  of  the  second  century, '  a  creation  of 
the  idea  at  a  time  which  bore  within  itself  the 
conditions  for  a  very  different  class  of  creations  \'  To 
this  century  belong  some  of  the  earliest  Apocryphal 
Gospels,  and  it  is  needless  to  say  that  those  dry 
products  of  superstition  do  not  afford  the  remotest 
parallel  to  the  tender  humanities  of  the  Apostle. 

The  argument  from  the  silence  of  the  Synoptists, 
which  is  much  insisted  upon  by  some  critics  who  have  noptistl  '^ 
not  formed  for  themselves  a  clear  and  accurate 
conception  of  what  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  -,  really 
counts  for  but  little.  We  are  accustomed  to  regard 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  three, — but  for  the  outline  and 
by  far  the  greater  part  of  their  narrative  they  are 
virtually  only  one.  The  groundwork  of  them  all  is  sup- 
plied by  a  single  document,  that  document  itself  a  com- 
pilation, and,  as  there  is  ample  evidence  to  show,  a 
very  fragmentary  one'.  Considering  that  the  Synoptists 
know  nothing  (though  we  have  seen  that  they  imply 
something)  of  events   in  Jerusalem   before   the   last 


The  silence 


'  Comm.  p.  439  ad  in.  records  of  this  period  (four  months, 

■^  Even  Dr.  Keim  still  presses  this  Keim.  ii.   336)    are  comprised    in 

argument,  i.  132.  forty-five  verses,  x.  1-45. 
^  In  St.  Mark's  Gospel  the  only 


i86 


THE  RAISIXG  OF  LAZARUS. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xi. 


The   raising 
of  the  dead. 


Authentic 
character  of 
the  narra- 
tive. 


Passover,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that    they    should 
omit  an  event  which  is  placed  at  Bethany. 

The  significance  of  their  silence  too  has  been 
exaggerated  by  looking  at  it  in  the  light  of  modern 
ideas.  To  us  the  raising  of  the  dead  stands  apart 
from  other  miracles  in  a  class  by  itself  as  peculiarly 
unexampled  and  incredible.  But  that  it  was  not  so 
regarded  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was  written 
appears  from  this  very  narrative,  where  the  Jews  are 
made  to  ask  whether  He  who  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  could  not  have  prevented  the  death  of  Lazarus 
altogether.  So,  in  the  Synoptists,  the  answer  that 
Jesus  gives  to  the  disciples  of  John  groups  together 
every  class  of  miracle,  the  raising  of  the  dead  amongst 
them,  without  distinction.  Similar  narratives  in  the 
Synoptists,  in  the  Acts,  and  in  the  Old  Testament,  are 
given  without  any  special  relief  or  emphasis.  And  if 
the  fourth  Evangelist  himself  does  lay  more  stress 
upon  them,  this  belongs  rather  to  his  own  peculiar 
conceptions  than  to  the  circle  of  popularly  current 
ideas. 

In  a  narrative  of  that  high  degree  of  authenticity 
that  we  have  been  led  to  vindicate  for  this,  we  must 
not  look  for  much  that  is  unhistorical.  If  there  is 
anything,  it  is  perhaps  the  repeated  declarations 
according  to  which  it  would  seem  to  be  asserted  that 
the  circumstances  had  been  from  the  first  providen- 
tially ordered  so  as  to  lead  up  directly  to  the  miracle. 
This  might  very  well  be  the  view  taken  after  the 
event  by  an  Apostle,  and  might  easily  affect  to  some 
extent  his  account  of  it. 

The  intense  humanity  attributed  to  Jesus,  His 
affection,  His  visible  suffering,  the  effort  with  which 


X.] 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


187 


He  collects  Himself,  are  all  strong  marks  of  authenti- 
cit}',  and  the  more  so  because  they  might  be  thought 
to  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  the  prologue.  But 
this  is  one  more  proof  how  little  that  doctrine  has 
disturbed  the  Evangelist's  true  historic  recollection. 

M.  Renan^  urges,  in  proof  that  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
must  have  had  some  sort  of  reality,  its  intimate 
connection  with  the  succeeding  portion  of  the  Gospel 
'  which  contains  an  amount  of  minute  information 
infinitely  superior  to  that  of  the  Synoptists.'  '  If  we 
reject  it  as  imaginary,'  he  says,  'all  the  edifice  of  the 
last  week  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  to  which  our  Gospel 
gives  so  much  solidity,  crumbles  at  one  blow.'  We 
may  doubt  whether  the  reality  contended  for  by 
M.  Renan,  who  reduces  the  miracle  to  a  vialcntcndu  ", 
satisfies  this  condition  ;  but  the  argument  still  remains 
valid. 

As  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  malentendu,  or  the  sup- 
position that  a  didactic  sentence,  ('  I  am  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life,')  has  been  wrapped  up  in  an 
ideal  history,  we  can  only  say  that,  if  this  explanation 
is  to  hold  good  here,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  all  through  the  Gospel.  There  is  no  reason  why 
the  Gospel  should  not  be,  from  first  to  last,  what 
M.  Renan  so  vigorously  repudiates,  a  purely  ideal 
composition.  The  raising  of  Lazarus  stands  or  falls 
with  the  rest  of  the  narrative.  It  presents  precisely 
the  same  characteristics ;   the  same  circumstantiality 


St.  Jolm   xi. 


'p.  5  14. 

^ '  Le  nqn\  de  Lazare,  que  le 
quatiieme  Evangile  donne  au  frere 
de  Marie  et  de  Marthe,  parait 
venir  de  la  parabole  Luc  xvi.  1 9  et 
suiv.  (notez  surtout  les  versets  30- 
31).     L'epithete  de  "  lepreux  "  que 


portait  Simon  et  qui  coincide 
avec  les  "  ulceres "  de  Luc  xvi. 
2C-2I,  peut  avoir  ame  u  ce  bizarre 
systeme  du  quatrieme  Evangile.' 
Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  354  n.  '  There  is 
a  river  in  Macedon,  and  there  is  a 
river  in  Monmouth.' 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS.  [CHAP. 


St.  John  xi.  (verses  i,  2,  6,  i6,  17,  20,  28-30,  32,  38,  39,  44,  46),  the 
y^,^^.^j,  same  topographical  accuracy  (ver.  18),  the  same  natural 
accessories  (verses  8,  19,  31,  36,  37),  the  same  tender 
breathing  human  life.  The  marks  of  authenticity, 
though  strong,  may  not  be  so  absolutely  convincing 
as  they  are  elsewhere,  but  still  they  are  the  same  in 
kind  as  the  other  phenomena  of  the  Gospel ;  and, 
if  we  put  upon  these  one  interpretation  in  one  place, 
I  we  must  also  in  another.  The  Gospel  is  like  that 
sacred  coat '  without  seam  woven  from  the  top  through- 
out ;'  it  is  either  all  real  and  true  or  all  fictitious  and 
illusory ;  and  the  latter  alternative  is,  I  cannot  but 
think,  more  difficult  to  accept  than  the  miracle. 

Controversies  as  to  historical  probability  are  always 
difficult  to  bring  to  a  conclusion,  and  therefore  I 
suppose  it  must  remain  an  open  question  whether  the 
final  arrest  and  condemnation  of  our  Lord  find  the 
best  and  fittest  preparation  in  the  Synoptists  or  in 
St.  John.  At  any  rate  the  Johannean  narrative  is 
consistent  and  consecutive  in  itself.  It  is  not  intended 
that  we  should  suppose  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim 
to  be  called  solely  in  consequence  of  the  raising  of 
Lazarus.  It  is  only  that,  as  coming  at  the  end  of  a 
series  of  miracles,  which  determines  the  hierarchic 
party  to  take  definite  action.  Ver.  48  throws  singular 
light  upon  their  motives,  which  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
alone  would  leave  much  in  the  dark  ;  '  If  we  let  Him 
thus  alone  all  men  wmII  believe  on  Him  :  and  the 
Romans  will  come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and 
nation.'  The  Sanhedrim,  especially  the  Pharisaic 
section  of  it,  was  a  national  and  patriotic  body.  It 
was  the  inheritor  and  guardian  of  the  Rabbinical 
:  theories  as  to  the  Messiah.      There  can  have  been  no 


X.] 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


189 


class  in  the  nation  in  which  these  were  so  inveterately 
ingrained  \  and  therefore  none  that  was  so  little 
accessible  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  It  was  from  first 
to  last  unintelligible  to  them.  It  seemed  to  abandon 
all  the  national  hopes  and  privileges,  and  to  make  it  a 
sin  to  defend  them.  If  it  were  successful,  it  seemed  as 
if  it  must  leave  the  field  open  to  the  Romans.  The 
national  existence  would  be  crushed  without  a 
struggle  ;  and  the  hierarchy  itself  would  vanish  with 
it.  It  is  rarely  in  ancient  literature  that  we  find  a 
highly  complicated  situation  so  well  understood  and 
described. 

A  point  has  been  made  by  the  Tubingen  critics  out 
of  an  expression  in  the  next  verse — '  Caiaphas  being 
the  high  priest  that  same  year' ;  as  if  this  implied  a 
yearly  tenure  and  change  of  office  '^.  But  this  is  not  at 
all  necessarily  involved  in  the  words.  '  That  fatal  year ' 
they  probably  mean  ;  but  in  any  case  the  knowledge 
of  Jewish  customs  and  Jewish  history  displayed  by 
the  Evangelist  is  beyond  question.  This  comes  out 
indeed  immediately  in  the  peculiar  oracular  functions 
attributed  to  the  High  Priest,  and  in  the  conception 
of  unconscious  prophecy  which  the  Evangelist  applies 
here.  It  is  also  involved  in  the  notice  of  ver.  55, 
•  And  many  went  out  of  the  country  up  to  Jerusalem 
before  the  passover  to  purify  themselves.'  There  is 
really  no  book  of  the  New  Testament  which,  so  far 
as    its    matter    is    concerned,    bears    such    clear   and 


St.  John   xi. 


'  This  is  acknowledged  on  all 
hands,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
individuals  like  Philo  ignored  the 
Messianic  prophecies,  or  like 
Hillel,    supposed    that    they   had 


been  already  fulfilled. 

-  Cf.  Ililgenfeld,  p.  297  n.  ; 
Schwegler,  Nach  •  apoitolische  Zeit- 
alter,  ii.  7,50.  This  point  is  given 
up  by  Keim,  i.  133. 


190 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


St.  John  xi. 


Ephraim. 


unmistakeable  marks  of  Jewish  origin  as  the  fourth 
Gospel. 

The  historical  value  of  these  last  verses  is  very  high. 
There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  among  com- 
mentators as  to  the  exact  position  of  the  city  called 
Ephraim,  but  not  for  any  want  of  data  supplied  either 
by  St.  John  or  by  other  sources.  Eusebius  says  that  it 
was  eight,  Jerome  twenty  miles  from  Jerusalem.  There 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
identified  with  the  Ephraim  mentioned  in  Josephus, 
B.  J.  iv.  9.  9,  and  in  2  Chron.  xii.  19,  as  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Bethel'.  According  to  Vaihinger 
the  wilderness  would  then  be  that  of  Bethaven,  though 
from  the  article  lyyvs  ttjs  ep-)]ixov  we  should  naturally 
take  it  as  the  wilderness  of  Judaea.  There  are  many 
of  these  geographical  identifications  in  which  it  is 
impossible  to  arrive  at  certainty.  It  is  enough  for  us 
to  be  sure,  as  we  may  be  here,  that  the  writer  had  a 
precise  and  definite  locality  before  him. 

'  Cf.  Vaihinger,  in  Herzog.  iv.  93. 


CHAPTER    XL 


THE   TRIUMPHAL   ENTRY    INTO   JERUSALEM. 


The  stay  at 
Ephraini. 


WE  are  not  told  how  long  our  Lord  and  His  ^St.  Johnxii 
disciples  stayed  at  Ephraim.  If  we  are  to  put 
faith  in  the  tradition  contained  in  the  Talmud,  and  in 
the  inferences  which  Dr.  Caspari  draws  from  it,  an 
actual  verdict  of  death  was  passed  at  the  recent  meeting 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  was  only  waiting  for  its  execu- 
tion until  an  opportunity  offered,  and  the  legal  period 
for  the  production  of  witnesses  in  the  defence  had 
expired.  This  would  make  the  interval  between  the 
retreat  to  Ephraim  and  the  Passover  coincide  more  or 
less  nearly  with  the  forty  days  allowed.  The  data 
however  are  not  such  as  we  can  build  upon  confidently. 

The  harmonistic  combination  of  this  later  portion  of 
the  Johannean  narrative  with  that  of  the  Synoptists 
also  appears  to  aim  at  an  amount  of  accuracy  which  is 
unattainable.  It  is  best  to  hold  fast  to  the  general 
scheme  given  by  St.  John,  and  to  treat  the  Synoptic 
sections,  especially  those  in  St.  Luke  (ix.  51-xviii.  35)  j 
as  fragments  of  a  great  picture  which  are  more  or  less 
fortuitously  thrown  together,  and  are  no  longer  j 
capable  of  an  exact  reconstruction.  1 

Apparently,  on  what  would  be,   according  to  our  The  arrival 
reckoning,  the  Friday  evening,  but  according  to  that  of  •  **    ^'  ""^ 


Chronologi- 
cal uncer- 
tainty. 


192 


THE   TRIUiMPHAL  ENTRY 


[chap. 


St.  John  xii. 


Superiority 
of    the    Jo- 
hanneaii 
narrative. 


Its  relation 
to  that  of 
the  Synop- 
tists. 


the  Jews,  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  Sabbath 
before  the  Passover,  Jesus  and  His  disciples  enter 
Bethany.  We  gather  this  as  well  from  the  law  which 
prohibited  a  long  journey  upon  the  Sabbath  day,  as 
from  the  fact  that  time  was  allowed  for  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  supper  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  i.e. 
at  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  and  nearly  twenty-four 
hours  afterwards. 

We  can  have  no  hesitation  in  following  here  the 
very  precise  narrative  of  St.  John  in  preference  to 
that  of  the  Synoptists,  according  to  which  this  supper 
would  seem  to  have  occurred  four  days  later.  Look- 
ing at  the  synopsis  of  the  three  Gospels,  St.  John,  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  on 
which  side  the  superiority  lies. 

The  natural  construction  to  put  upon  the  words 
'but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them  that  sat  at  the  table 
with  Him,'  certainly  seems  to  be  that  Lazarus  was  a 
guest  and  not  the  host  :  but  if  so,  there  is  no 
contradiction  with  the  Synoptists,  who  place  the  feast 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Leper.  There  may  have 
been  some  relationship  or  friendship  between  Simon 
and  the  family  of  Lazarus.  St.  John  is  alone  in 
identifying  the  unnamed  'woman'  of  the  Synoptists 
with  Mary,  Lazarus'  sister.  He  is  alone  in  calling 
attention  to  the  rich  odour  of  the  ointment  ;  he  is 
also  alone  in  assigning  the  complaint,  which  the 
Synoptists  agree  with  him  in  mentioning,  definitely 
to  Judas  the  traitor,  and  in  the  account  which  he  gives 
of  the  position  and  character  of  the  false  Apostle. 
This  is  an  extremely  natural  touch,  if  we  suppose  the 
Evangelist  and  Judas  to  have  been  Apostles  together. 
The  detestation  in  which   Judas   was   held    by   the 


XI.] 


INTO   JERUSALEM. 


193 


Apostolic  circle  may  well  have  had  its  origin  further 
back  in  suspicions  such  as  those  which  are  here 
recorded.  This  trait  in  his  character,  too,  gives 
peculiar  appropriateness  to  his  remonstrance,  St. 
John  is  anxious  to  remove  the  imputation  from  the 
other  Apostles,  and  fixes  it  upon  its  real  author, 
explaining  the  motive  by  which  it  was  prompted. 

In  some  of  the  other  details  of  the  Johannean 
narrative  there  are  remarkable  coincidences  with  the 
Synoptists,  which  apparently  rest  upon  a  basis  of 
actual  fact,  but  in  regard  to  which  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  memory  of  the  Apostle  had  been 
refreshed  by  a  previous  perusal  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  Thus  there  is,  in  common  with  St.  Luke, 
the  statement  that  Martha  served,  and,  in  common 
with  St.  Mark,  the  remarkable  epithet  TrtortK?/,  and  the 
term  TpiaKon-Lcov  hr\vapi(jiv ,  in  common  with  both  ets  \ir]v 
i]lii.pav  Tov\  kvTat^iaaiiov  fJ.ov, 

If  this  narrative  had  stood  alone,  we  might  have 
hesitated  to  say  whether  it  had  not  been  entirely 
constructed  upon  that  of  the  Synoptists — though  even 
then  the  number  of  details  peculiar  to  St.  John  would 
involve  a  difficulty.  They  point,  as  I  think,  rather 
in  the  direction  of  original  reminiscence,  but  do  not 
in  this  particular  instance  lie  so  wide  as  to  be  beyond 
invention.  While  it  is  natural  that  an  Apostle  should 
recall  his  own  early  suspicions  of  the  traitor,  it  is  not 
so  very  unnatural  that  legend  or  fiction  should  fasten 
similar  suspicions  upon  him. 

But  when  it  is  remembered  that  coincidences  of 
this  sort  are  confined,  so  far  as  we  have  gone  at 
present,  to  this  narrative  and  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  that  along  with  them  we  have  a  greater 

O 


St.  Johnxii. 


Coinci- 
dences. 


Indepen- 
dence of  St. 
John. 


194 


THE    TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY 


[CHA 


St.  John  xii. 


The  entry 

into 

Jerusalem. 


number  of  instances  where  the  Synoptists  are  cor- 
rected, that  the  character  of  the  Gospel  in  general 
is  one  of  bold  originality,  and  that  all  the  narrative 
portions  alike  present  this  same  accurate  minuteness, 
it  becomes  clear  that  the  only  tenable  hypothesis  is 
that  which  we  have  accepted  —  that  the  Evangelist 
has  not  copied  existing  documents,  but  has  only  had 
latent  impressions  revived  by  them,  which  have  served 
to  lend  additional  distinctness  to  his  description. 

The  narrative  as  a  whole  is  vouched  for  by  the 
saying  in  ver.  8  ('  The  poor  always  ye  have  with  you ; 
but  Me  ye  have  not  always '),  which  is  of  indubitable 
authenticity.  It  also  goes  to  confirm  the  Johannean 
Christology.  Those  who  realize  most  deeply  the  true 
relation  of  Jesus  to  the  poor,  will  feel  how  vast  are 
the  claims  here  enunciated  —  enunciated,  too,  with 
that  calm  and  simple  authority  which  is  its  own 
legitimation. 

The  entry  into  Jerusalem  is  also  contained  in  all 
four  Gospels.  In  St.  John  it  appears  in  an  abridged 
form,  which  however  ofifers  nothing  that  conflicts  with 
the  Synoptists.  The  acclamations  attributed  to  the 
multitude  are  important,  and  deserve  attention.  We 
have  these  clearly  in  their  fullest  and  most  original 
form  in  St.  Mark :  '  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  :  Blessed  be  the  kingdom  of  our 
father  David,  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ; 
Hosanna  in  the  highest.'  The  allusion  to  the  theo- 
cratic king  is  evidently  original.  St.  Matthew  has 
omitted  it  entirely.  St.  Luke  has  reduced  it  to  the 
single  word  '  king.'  St.  John  gives  a  shorter  but 
fully  equivalent  form,  '  the  King  of  Israel.' 

Once  more,  as  in  ii.  23,  vii.  39,  the  Evangelist  tells 


XL] 


/XTO  JERUSALEM. 


19 


US  how  the  application  of  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah 
was  not  apparent  at  the  first,  but  gradually  dawned 
upon  the  disciples,  as  they  afterwards  came  to  reflect 
upon  the  events  they  had  witnessed.  This  coincidence 
with  Luke  xxiv.  25,  26  is  probable  in  itself,  and 
furnishes  another  not  inconsiderable  proof  that  it  was 
an  Apostle  who  wrote  the  Gospel. 

The  composition  of  the  crowd,  and  the  motives  by 
which  it  was  actuated,  are  well  described  by  St.  John. 
We  gather  from  ver.  12  that  it  consisted  partly  or 
chiefly  of  pilgrims  who  had  come  up  for  the  feast. 
Many  of  these  were  probably  Galileans  who  were 
already  prepared  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah. Some,  we  see  from  ver.  18,  were  attracted  espe- 
cially by  the  great  miracle  that  had  taken  place  at 
Bethany.  M.  Renan  has  noticed  the  repeated  refer- 
ences to  this  miracle,  and  evidently  feels  that  these 
are  inconsistent  with  his  new  theory  of  malaitcndu  ; 
he  therefore  exerts  all  his  finesse  and  dexterity  of 
style  to  sustain  as  a  possible  alternative  his  earlier 
view,  which  makes  the  miracle,  in  plain  words,  a 
preconcerted  fraud  '.  However  much  we  may  allow 
for  the  peculiarities  of  Oriental  character,  this  can 
only  be  taken  as  an  instance  of  the  desperate  re- 
sources -  to  which  those  are  driven  who  deny  miracles 
a  priori,  and  yet  are  at  once  too  clear-sighted  and 
too  conscientious  to  underrate  the  historical  evidence 
for  them. 

Ver.  19  {'  Perceive  ye  not  how  ye  prevail  nothing') 
well  marks  the  climax  of  the  Pharisees'  opposition, 


St.  John  xii. 


Survey  of 
theposition. 


'    Vie  de  Jes'ts.     Appendice,  pp.  510-513. 

'  Compare  The  Jems  of  History,  pp.  177,  178  n. 

O  2 


196 


THE    TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY 


[chap. 


St.  John  xii 


Interview 

with 

Greeks. 


and  the  climax  also  of  the  success  by  which  it  was 
provoked.  Our  Lord  had  probably  more  disciples 
now  than  at  any  other  period  of  His  ministry.  The 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  as  if  it  were  the  beginning  of 
the  Messianic  reign,  would  give  fresh  impulse  to  their 
enthusiasm — though  there  would  be  few  in  whom  it 
would  survive  the  '  stumbling-block  of  the  cross.' 
This  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
almost  total  desertion  that  followed  His  death,  so 
that  the  Apostles  had  as  it  were  almost  to  rebuild 
the  Church  from  the  foundation.  The  visible  results 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  might  have  been  summed  up  in 
the  definite  and  loyal  attachment  of  the  Apostles  and 
some  few  others,  and  in  the  creation  of  a  general 
susceptibility  to  Christian  teaching.  But  in  this  small 
seed  what  wonderful  powers  of  growth  and  expansion 
lay  hidden  ! 

In  verses  30  foil,  we  have  the  account  of  an 
interview  with  certain  Greeks,  i.  e.  persons  who,  by 
birth  Gentiles  and  heathens,  were  now  apparently, 
from  their  having  come  up  to  the  feast,  proselytes  in 
the  remoter  degree. 

They  are  introduced,  under  circumstances  that  are 
closely  narrated,  by  Andrew  and  Philip  ;  and  it  speaks 
well  for  the  historical  truth  of  this  episode  that  no- 
thing further  is  said  respecting  them.  The  object  of 
the  Evangelist  may  be,  probably  is,  that  assigned  by 
Bengel,  Baur  and  Meyer,  to  indicate  the  transference 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  bring 
out  by  contrast  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews.  But  if  the 
circumstance  had  not  been  originally  historical  it 
would  doubtless  have  been  more  enlarged  upon.  Ap- 
propriate  speeches   would   have   been   put   into   the 


XL] 


INTO  JERUSALEM. 


197 


mouth  of  these  proselytes,  and  they  would  have  re- 
ceived a  more  directly  appropriate  reply. 

The  reply  that  St.  John  gives  is  not  addressed  so 
much  to  the  proselytes  as  to  the  disciples — perhaps 
in  particular  the  two,  Andrew  and  Philip — and  shades 
ofif  almost  into  soliloquy.  The  approach  of  these 
Greeks  suggests  to  Jesus  the  thought  of  His  death, 
the  great  instrument  through  which  the  Gentiles  were 
to  be  gathered  in. 

Ver.  24  {'  Except  a  corn  of  wheat '),  there  is  every 
reason  to  think,  must  be  authentic.  Ver.  35  ('  He  that 
loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it ')  is  found  also  in  the 
Synoptists  in  a  different  context,  and  perhaps  a  truer 
one,  though  it  is  not  unnatural  that  the  Apostle 
should  refer  it  to  this. 

Ver.  27  foil,  hardly  excludes  or  takes  the  place 
of  the  agony  in  the  Garden.  As  the  feeling  there  ex- 
pressed was  not  momentary  or  transient,  the  scene 
itself  may  well  have  been  repeated  in  its  essential 
features.  That  the  voice  from  heaven  was  a  real 
objective  fact  is  rendered  probable  by  the  comments 
which  are  so  naively  given  in  ver.  29. 

Ver.  34  adds  to  our  already  large  collection  a 
Rabbinical  inference  from  passages  like  Isa.  ix.  7, 
Dan.  vii.  14,  which  none  but  a  Jew,  and  probably  none 
but  an  ear- witness,  would  have  thought  of  introducing : 
'  We  have  heard  out  of  the  law  that  Christ  abideth 
for  ever :  and  how  sayest  thou.  The  Son  of  Man  must 
be  lifted  up  .-*  Who  is  this  Son  of  Man  .-"  Here  too  we 
have  the  secret,  unexplained  by  the  Synoptists,  why 
even  when  the  scale  is  seeming  to  turn  for  a  moment 
in  favour  of  belief,  it  is  continually  swayed  down 
again   by  the  discovery  of  some   new  particular   in 


St.  John  xii. 


The  Saviour 
troubled. 


Eternity  of 
the  Messiah, 


THE   TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY 


[chap. 


St.  John  xii. 
Retrospect. 


The  conflict 
portrayed  in 
the  Gospel, 
not  purely 
ideal  : 


which  the  current  ideas  respecting  the  Messiah  are 
disappointed  and  contradicted.  Therefore  it  is  that 
the  EvangeHst,  in  bringing  the  first  half  of  his  Gospel 
to  a  close,  and  in  reviewing  the  results  which  had  so 
far  been  obtained,  can  only  explain  their  comparative 
smallness  by  that  judicial  blindness  of  which  Isaiah 
had  prophesied  when  he  saw  and  spake  of  the  advent 
of  the  Messiah.  'And  yet,'  he  adds  with  the  candour 
of  a  historian,  but  with  the  bitterness  of  one  who 
had  been  himself  a  confessor  and  apostle,  '  even 
among  the  Sanhedrim  many  believed  in  Him  ;  but 
because  of  the  Pharisees  they  did  not  confess 
Him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue. 
For  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the 
praise  of  God.' 

So  far  the  subject  of  the  Gospel  may  be  brought 
under  the  categories  of  the  prologue  as  the  history  of 
the  conflict  between  '  light'  and  '  darkness.'  We  may, 
if  we  please,  see  in  the  various  scenes  of  the  drama 
which  have  been  hitherto  unrolled  before  us,  so  many 
typical  representations  of  this  contact  of  the^  'light' 
successively  with  different  portions  of  that  chosen 
people  to  whom  it  came — sometimes  entering  in,  but 
more  often  rejected,  and  at  last  compelled  to  throw 
its  beams  elsewhere,  and  illuminate  regions  that  sat  in 
darkness.  But,  if  we  do  so,  we  shall  not  therefore 
recognise  anything  but  the  most  bond  fide  history. 
The  principle  that  the  Evangelist  has  pursued  is  one 
of  selection,  not  of  invention.  The  latter  hypothesis 
is  by  every  class  of  considerations  decisively  excluded. 
On*  the  contrary,  when  certain  deductions  have  been 
made  for  a  kind  of  monotony  which  results  from  the 
limited  number  of  subjects  put  forward  for  dogmatic 


XI.] 


IXTO  JERUSALEM. 


199 


exposition,  the  great  opposition  itself  is  portrayed  in  a 
manner  singularly  lifelike  and  intelligible.  In  the 
fourth  Gospel  we  see  this  opposition  in  its  true 
character  as  essentially  national.  It  is  the  conflict  of 
the  Messianic  idea  as  popularly  understood  and 
authoritatively  expounded,  with  its  spiritual  counter- 
part. The  interval  was  not  one  that  could  be  crossed 
in  a  moment.  And  the  higher  our  conception  of  that 
idea  which  is  embodied  in  Christianity — the  more 
lofty  and  pure  we  believe  it  to  be — the  more  easily 
shall  we  comprehend  the  difficulty  that  it  found  in 
penetrating  minds  not  dishonest,  in  the  highest  degree 
brave  and  tenacious,  but  encrusted  and  overgrown 
with  narrow  prejudices,  and  stunted  and  perverted  by 
false  method.  Most  curious  indeed  is  it  to  trace  the 
efforts  which  under  more  favourable  conditions  the 
Jew  himself  made  to  escape  from  his  thraldom. 
Alexandrinism  was  the  refuge  by  which,  with  the  help 
of  Greek  culture,  the  higher  spirits  sought  to  free 
themselves  from  Judaism.  But  Alexandrinism  in  its 
turn  was  apt  to  become  vague  and  indefinite.  It  lay 
in  too  near  proximity  to  the  wild  oriental  mythologies. 
The  pure  abstractions  of  its  Platonic  source  were  too 
easily  corrupted  into  genealogies  and  old  wives'  fables, 
or  worse.  At  best  it  was  speculative  and  unpractical. 
It  provided  but  a  feeble  and  failing  guide,  and  no 
strong  prevailing  motive  in  active  life.  It  might  have 
held  sway  over  a  philosopher  here  and  there,  but 
would  never  have  had  power  upon  the  masses.  Some- 
thing different  was  needed,  and  something  different 
was  given.  '  The  Word  was  made  flesh '  is  the  key 
by  which  the  inspired  Apostle  unlocks  the  secrets  of 
the  spiritual  world,  and  sets  in  motion  the  springs  of 


St.  John  xii. 


but  con- 
ceived in  a 
concrete 
form  and 
with  local 
colour. 


THE   TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM. 


St.  John  xii. 


the  practical.  By  way  of  developing  this  great  central 
proposition,  he  gives  us,  not  a  philosophical  disquisi- 
tion, but  a  simple  history.  He  sets  this  before  the 
eye  of  faith,  and  he  leaves  it  to  work  its  work.  Its 
influence  extends  equally  into  both  spheres.  It  solves 
theoretical  difficulties,  but  it  has  also  a  firm  hold  upon 
practice.  It  is  law,  motive,  and  example  in  one.  It 
satisfies  religious  instinct  and  aspiration,  as  well  as 
philosophical  system.  While  Judaism  and  Alexan- 
drinism  have  both  ceased  to  be  living  forces,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  has  held  on  its  way ;  and  though 
we  may  not  perhaps  recognise  it  under  its  old  name, 
it  is  still  to  this  hour  the  life  of  Christendom. 

'Jesus  cried  and  said.  He  that  believeth  on  Me, 
believeth  not  on  Me,  but  on  Him  that  sent  Me.  And 
he  that  seeth  Me,  seeth  Him  that  sent  Me.  I  am 
come  a  light  unto  the  world,  that  whosoever  believeth 
on  Me  should  not  abide  in  darkness.'  So  the  Apostle 
summarizes  the  teaching  of  which  he  is  the  bearer  ;  so 
we  may  summarize  the  truth  that  his  Gospel  was 
written  to  prove  and  to  proclaim. 


CHAPTER    XII. 


THE   DAY   OF   THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


THE  next  eight  chapters  of  the  Gospel  are  con- ■  St.  John  xii. 
centrated  upon  the  events  of  four  days,  which  j  j^e  Day  of 
are  treated  with  a  fulness  suited  to  their  importance.  { the  Cruci- 

11'-  fixion  and 

But  before  we  enter  upon  these  more  closely,  it  may  |  ^f  the  Last 
be  well  to  dispose  of  the  main  critical  question  arising  Supper. 
out  of  them — that  which  regards  the  date  of  the 
Crucifixion  and  of  the  Last  Supper.  The  literature 
of  the  subject  is  notoriously  large,  and  to  state  all  the 
different  and  conflicting  theories  would  require  a 
treatise  in  itself;  but  it  may  suffice  to  put  forward 
that  alone  which  appears  to  commend  itself  to  a 
careful  judgment  as  resulting  from  the  survey  of 
previous  investigations,  and  to  leave  it  to  be  ratified  or 
not  by  the  verdict  of  general  opinion.' 

I.  It  is  to  me  clear  that  St.  John  intends  to  place 
the  Crucifixion  on  the  day  when  the  Paschal  Lamb  was 
slain,  and  before  the  Passover  when  it  was  eaten,  i.  e. 
in  the  afternoon  (or  at  the  end)  of  the  14th  Nisan. 
The  Last  Supper  he  places  in  the  first  hours  of  the 
(Jewish)  day  on  which  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  slain,  i.  e. 
on  the  evening  with  which  the  14th  Nisan  began. 
Thus  : — 

•  Compare  with   what   follows,     Lehen  Jesu,    pp.    164-186;    Meyer 
esp.  Wieseler,  Cbron.  Syn.  pp.  313-     on  "John  xviii.  28,  &c. 
2,^2;Beitrdge,  pp.  230-283;  Caspari, 


The  Johan- 
nean  date. 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION.  [CHAP. 

Julian  Day.  Jewish  Day. 

13  Nisan. 

Thursday,  6  p.m 14  Nisan  beg. 

Last  Supper. 
^.  J   .  ,  ,  Gethsemane. 

^     Judicial    Examination  before 

Friday,  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  then 

trpaSi.  Pilate. 

9   a.m.    (Mark),   6th     Judgment  finally  given. 

hour  (John),    

12  —  3  p.m Crucifixion. 

3  —  5  p.m Slaughter  of  Paschal  Lamb. 

6  —  p.m.  15  Nisan  beg. 

The  Passover. 

Midnight 

Saturday,   Great  Day  of  the  Feast. 

Jesus  in  the  grave. 
6  p.m 16  Nisan  beg^. 

This  result  rests  as  regards  St.  John  upon  the  fol- 
lowing data  : 

a.  St,  John  xiii.  i,  'Before  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over  '  (irpo  be  Trjs  kopTrjS  tov  Ttda)(a,  k.t.K).  The 
connection  in  which  these  words  are  to  be  taken  is 
not  precisely  fixed,  but  I  have  no  doubt  whatever 
that  they  are  intended  to  assign  a  date  generally  to 
the  narrative  of  the  Last  Supper  which  follows.  They 
can  hardly  be  taken  exclusively  with  dhoos,  ayairrja-as, 
or  tiydiirjaei',  in  the  same  sense  :  for  we  usually  date 
facts  and  not  feelings  ;  and  I  cannot  think  that  it 
is  admissible  to  take  -npo  t?]?  eopTrjs  grammatically 
with  dhw-i,  but  virtually  as  if  its  sense  were  thrown 
on  to  the  clause  liKdev  auTov  r]  a>pa,  ('  Before  the  feast 
He  knew  that  His  hour  was  come'  =  '  He  knew  that 
at  the  feast  His  hour  zvonld  be  come-.')    There  would 

I  This  table  is  taken  with  some  fahren  soUte,  ehe  es  ihm  widerfuhr. 

additions  from  Caspari,  p.  1 70.  Bereits  vor  dem  Passahfeste  wusste 

^  Luthardt,  whose  view   is   en-  Jesus,  dass  die  Stunde  seiner  Ver- 

dorsed  by  Wieseler,  explains    the  klarung   im  Tode  gekommen  sei. 

passage    thus  :  — '  Der    Evangelist  Das  hat  einen  Sinn  allerdings  nur 

hebt  gern  hervor,  dass  Jesus  v/usste,  dann,  wenn   Jesus  eben    an    dem 

was   ihm   bevorstand.      So    denn  Passahfeste    gestorben    ist.'       (ii. 

auchhier:  er  wusste,  was  ihm  wider-  274.) 


St.  John  xii. 


XII.] 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


203 


appear  to  be  a  kind  of  anacolouthon  at  the  end  of 
ver.  I,  as  if  bdirvov  k-noiriaev  had  followed — or  the  first 
etSws  being  carried  on  by  the  second  without  regard 
to  the  KOI  preceding  (/cat  bd-nvov  y^vo^ihov).  But  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  evident,  and  only  one 
meaning  I  believe  to  be  possible  :  '  It  was  on  the 
evening  before  the  passover  that  Jesus  sat  down  to 
supper  with  His  disciples.' 

^.  St.  John  xviii.  28,  '  (The  Jews)  themselves  went 
not  into  the  judgment-hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled ; 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  passover.'  If  the  words 
(^ayojo-t  TO  vaa^a  are  to  be  taken  in  their  ordinary 
sense,  this  would  clearly  imply  that  the  passover  had 
not  been  eaten  already.  Accordingly  those  who 
place  the  Crucifixion  on  the  15th  Nisan,  endeavour 
to  show,  that  they  refer  not  to  the  passover  proper 
(the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb),  but  to  that  of  the 
Chagiga  or  thankoffering  which  took  place  on  Nisan 
15th,  or  one  of  the  days  immediately  following.  But 
the  '  thankofi"ering '  was  not  a  rite  confined  to  the 
passover  ;  it  was  also  ordered  to  be  made  at  the  feast 
of  weeks  and  of  tabernacles  (Deut.  xvi.  16).  It  had 
therefore  nothing  specifically  paschal  in  its  character ; 
and  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  it  would  be  designated 
by  the  name  of  the  most  distinctive  part  of  the 
paschal  festival.  The  instances  that  have  been  ad- 
duced in  support  of  this  theory  only  tend  to  show 
that  the  term  7:aa)(a  might  cover  the  whole  of  the 
seven  days  festival,  including  the  offering  of  the  Cha- 
giga, not  that  it  could  be  used, — still  less  that  the 
phrase  (payelv  to  Trdaxa  could  be  used,  of  this  last  singly 
and  separately.  For  the  eating  of  unleavened  bread 
the   condition  of  levitical   purity  was  not    required. 


St.'John]xii. 


204 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xii. 


We  seem  therefore  to  be  driven  back  to  the  most 
obvious  and  natural  conclusion  that  the  passover  pro- 
per is  meant  ;  that  the  Jews  had  yet  to  partake  of  it ; 
and  thus  that  the  date  is  the  14th  and  not  the  15th 
Nisan  ^. 

y.  St.  John  xix.  14,  'And  it  was  the  preparation  of 
the  passover  and  about  the  sixth  hour'  (J/y  8e  Trapa- 
aK^v]]  70V  irdn-^a,  wpa  be  ojaet  eKTt]).  Here  a  nice  phi- 
lological question  arises,  turning  upon  the  history  of 
the  word  -naparrKevi].  Can  this  mean  not  the  prepa- 
ration for  the  passover,  but  Friday  in  the  paschal 
week  ?  So  far  it  seems  to  be  clear  that  irapaa-Kevr]  was  at 
this  time  used  independently,  i.e.  without  tov  (ra^^arov, 
for  the  day  of  the  week  that  we  call  '  Friday,'  and 
also  that  the  phrases  <Td(3(3aTov  rod  -ndcrxa  (Ignat.  Phil. 
13  Interpol, )  and  KvptaKai  tov  Trdax^a  (Hippolytus,  Chron.) 
were  used  later  for  '  the  Sabbath '  and  for  '  the  Sun- 
days in  the  paschal  week '  respectively.  But  whether 
or  not  these  instances  are  sufficient  to  justify  the 
interpretation  given,  we  seem  to  be  relieved  from 
the  necessity  of  deciding.  For  whatever  might  have 
been  the  case  in  regard  to  other  days,  it  seems  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  the  great  day  of  the 
feast  itself  should  be  called  simply  '  Friday  in  the 
paschal  week.'  Here  we  are  again  compelled  to  revert 
to  the  more  natural  interpretation. 

8.  St.  John  xix.  31,'  Because  it  was  the  preparation . . 


^  I  do  not  repeat  here  the  argu- 
ment used  by  Dr.  Caspar!  (appa- 
rently following  Bleek),  that  defile- 
ment contracted  through  entering 
the  house  of  a  heathen  would  only 
last  until  the  evening  of  the  same 
day,  and  therefore  would  not  pre- 


vent the  eating  of  the  Chagiga, 
because  the  same  fact,  if  it  is  true, 
would  raise  a  similar  difficulty  in 
regard  to  the  passover ;  but  the 
fact  itself  is  a  doubtful  inference. 
Cf.  also  Wieseler,  Beit.  p.  251  n. 


xn.] 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


205 


for  that  sabbath  day  was  a  high  day,'  i.  e.  on  the 
ordinary  view,  because  it  was  at  once  the  weekly 
sabbath  and  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  which  had  itself 
the  sanctity  of  a  sabbath  '  (Lev.  xxiii.  J'S).  On  the  rival 
theory  the  '  high  day '  is  accounted  for  by  the  coinci- 
dence of  the  sabbath  with  the  offering  of  the  'sheaf  of 
first-fruits'  (Lev.  xxiii.  10-14)  which  fell  on  Nisan  16. 
Both  these  explanations  would  be  adequate,  though 
the  first  is  perhaps  slightly  the  more  attractive. 

e.  An  incidental  argument  occurs  in  xiii.  29,  '  Buy 
those  things  that  we  have  need  of  against  the  feast,' 
i.e.  that  of  Nisan  15.  From  which  it  appears  doubly 
that  the  feast  had  not  yet  begun  ;  for  then  all  business 
and  traffic  would  be  suspended,  and  the  buying  of 
necessaries  would  no  longer  be  possible. 

On  each  of  these  points  the  thesis  is  maintained, 
and  without  straining  the  plain  language  of  the  Gospel 
no  other  seems  tenable — -that  the  Crucifixion  took 
place  at  the  end,  the  Last  Supper  at  the  beginning, 
of  the  14th  Nisan,  the  one  on  Thursday  evening,  the 
other  on  Friday  afternoon. 

IL  But  if  this  is  the  conclusion  that  we  derive  from 
St.  John  it  is  no  less  clear  that  a  diff"erent  one  was 
intended  by  the  Synoptists.  In  their  narrative  the 
Last  Supper  is  throughout  identified  with  the  paschal 
meal,  and  is  placed  upon  the  first  hours  not  of  the 
14th  but  of  the  15  th  Nisan, 


'  The  common  explanation  of 
the  word  '  sabbath  '  in  Lev.  xxiii. 
II,  15.  is  that  the  '  first  day  of  the 
feast  ■  is  meant,  which  had  just 
been  described  as  kept  sabbatically. 
Knobel  however  {Comm.  ad  loc.) 
combats  this,  and  would  make  it 
=   the    regular    weekly    sabbath. 


Arguing  on  the  supposition,  that 
the  year  always  began  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  he  would  make 
the  offering  of  the  sheaf  fall  always 
on  Nisan  15,  thus  cutting  away 
the  ground  from  Dr.  Wicseler ;  the 
premises,  however,  for  this  conclu- 
sion are  highly  precarious. 


St.  John  xii. 


The  Synop- 
tic date. 


2o6 


THE  DA  V  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xii. 


Inconsis- 
tencies in 
the  Synop- 
tic tradition. 


It  was  '  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  when 
they  killed  the  passover'  (Mark  xiv.  12),  that  the 
disciples  came  to  Jesus  to  ask  where  they  should 
prepare  the  passover.  This  must  have  been  in  the 
morning,  when  some  twelve  hours  or  more  of  the  14th 
Nisan  were  past.^  The  meal  was  not  eaten  until  late 
in  the  same  day,  i.  e.  after  the  slaughter  of  the  paschal 
lamb,  just  as  the  15th  Nisan  was  beginning,  and 
precisely  at  the  time  when  the  passover  was  usually 
eaten  (cf.  Ex,  xii.  6,  8).  So  far  the  Synoptists  are 
explicit,  and  they  describe  the  Last  Supper  consis- 
tently as  the  Paschal  meal. 

III.  Here  then  we  can  only  say  that  there  is  a  con- 
tradiction ;  and  the  question  is  which  of  the  two 
narratives  is  to  be  preferred.  The  Synoptists  them- 
selves decide  for  us  by  letting  fall  certain  slight 
incidental  indications,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 
original  tradition  agreed  with  the  version  of  St.  John, 
and  that  they  have  deserted  this  tradition  in  giving 
to  the  Last  Supper  the  character  of  a  passover. 
These  indications  are  as  follows.  In  Mark  xiv,  2 
(Matt.  xxvi.  5),  the  Sanhedrim  determines  to  arrest 
Jesus  ;  '  but,'  they  say,  '  not  on  the  feast  day,  lest  there 
be  an  uproar  amongst  the  people.'     But,  according  to 


1  Canon  Westcott  {Intr.  p. 
318)  reconciles  the  Synoptic  and 
Johannean  narratives,  by  supposing 
that  the  question  of  the  disciples 
was  asked,  and  the  instruction  to 
them  given,  immediately  upon  the 
sunset  of  the  13th.  Calling  atten- 
tion to  the  epithet  (ava'^Kaiov) 
iToiixov,  he  argues  that  the  prepa- 
ration need  not  have  taken  much 
time,  and. that  therefore  the  supper 
may  really  have  taken  place  as  St. 
John  represents  it,  on  the  evening 


of  the  i3th-i4th  But  I  cannot 
bring  myself  to  think  that  this  is 
consistent  with  the  plain  words  of 
St.  Mark.  Taking  Mark  xiv.  12 
and  17  together,  it  seems  to  me 
clear  that  an  interval  of  some 
hours  is  implied  between  them, 
and  also  that  the  disciples'  question 
was  asked  before  sunset.  The  last 
words  of  ver.  16  show  that  'iroi/xov 
cannot  be  taken  to  mean  that 
further  preparation  was  not  neces- 
sary. 


XII.] 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


207 


the  S}'noptic  account,  it  was  precisely  on  the  feast 
day,  and  aftci'  the  feast  itself,  that  the  arrest  was 
carried  out.  We  notice  in  confirmation  of  the  sus- 
picion that  this  cannot  have  been  the  case,  that  though 
the  meal  is  described  as  a  passover,  there  is  no  hint  or 
allusion  to  its  most  characteristic  feature,  the  paschal 
lamb.  Following  the  course  of  the  narrative  we  find 
that  Simon  of  Cyrene  is  met  returning  ai:  aypov  (Mark 
XV.  21,  Luke  xxiii.  26),  from  which  we  infer  that  it 
was  a  working  day.  Work  did  not  cease  until  noon  on 
Nisan  14th,  but  on  the  15th  it  was  suspended  alto- 
gether. The  haste  with  which  the  bodies  were  taken 
down  from  the  cross  is  accounted  for  by  the  sanctity 
of  a  day  that  is  about  to  begin,  not  of  one  that  is  just 
ending  (Mark  xv.  42).  If  it  had  been  the  latter, 
Joseph  of  Arimathaea  could  not  have  '  bought  the 
fine,  linen'  that  was  used  for  the  embalmment  (Mark 
XV.  46). 

This  unwilling  testimony  of  the  Synoptists  can 
hardly  be  otherwise  than  conclusive  ;  but  it  is  con- 
firmed in  other  ways. 

(i)  The  difficulties  of  supposing  that  the  meeting  of 
the  Sanhedrim,  the  Judgment,  and  the  Crucifixion 
took  place  on  the  great  day  of  the  feast,  arc  not  indeed 
insuperable,  but  leave  a  certain  weight  of  probability 
against  it. 

(2)  Both  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  v.  7)  and  the  author  of 
the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  v.  6,  9,  &c.)  regard  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  as  representing  that  of  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb  ;  which  is  the  more  natural  if  it  coincided  with 
it  in  point  of  time. 

(3)  Jewish  tradition  refers  the  death  of  Jesus  to 
the  '  vcspera  paschatis'  (  =  7/  -apaaKevii  tov  Trdcr^a). 


St.  John  xii. 


Other 
evidence. 


208 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION.  [cHAP. 


St.  John  xii. 


Reservation 
in  favour  of 
the  Synop- 
tists. 


(4)  And  in  this  the  great  mass  of  Christian  tra- 
dition that  has  come  down  to  us,  agrees  with  it.  The 
Chronicon  Paschale,  a  work  of  the  seventh  century,  is 
prefaced  by  a  number  of  quotations  from  the  early 
fathers,  in  which  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the 
Crucifixion  took  place  on  Nisan  14,  superseding  once 
and  for  ever  the  offering  of  the  paschal  lamb.  The 
fathers  quoted  are  Peter  of  Alexandria  (t3ii), 
Hippolytus,  bishop  of  Portus  (c.  230),  Apollinaris, 
bishop  of  Hierapolis  (c.  170),  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(t  220).^  There  is  no  ambiguity  in  any  of  this  evidence, 
and  to  it  may  be  added  that  of  Irenaeus  (f  202), 
Tertullian  (t  220),  Origen  (f  254),  and  Epiphanius 
(t  403).  A  passage  in  Justin  Martyr  is  open  to  some 
doubt,  but  from  the  extract  it  appears  that  he  is  no 
exception  to  the  general  rule  ;  for  if  he  places  the 
Crucifixion  upon  the  '  day  of  the  passover,'  he  shows 
that  he  means  by  it  the  day  on  which  the  paschal 
lamb  was  slain,  and  on  the  second  evening  of  which 
it  was  eaten,  the  14th  Nisan-. 

In  the  face  of  all  this  we  can  hardly  refuse  to  accept 
the  Johannean  date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  the  Cru- 
cifixion as  the  right  one.  The  Synoptists,  however, 
have  one  real  argument  to  allege  in  their  favour  ;  that 
is,  the  way  in  which  paschal  forms  are  observed,  not 
only  in  their  own  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
Last  Supper,  but  also  in  that  of  St.  Paul  (cf.  Luke 
xxii.  17,  20;  1  Cor.  x.  16,  xi.  25).  It  may  be  there- 
fore that  the  two  accounts  are  partially  at  least  to  be 
reconciled  ;  and  that  perhaps  in  the  way  suggested  by 

^  The   quotations  are    given    in     Steitz  (Herzog.  xi.  151). 
full  by  Caspari,  pp.  179-186.    The         ^  Cf.  esp.  Meyer,  Einl.  pp.  24, 
names    which    follow^     are     from     25. 


XII.] 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


209 


Dr.  Caspari.  This  clear  and  accurate  writer  endea- 
vours to  show  from  the  Tahnud,  that  the  other  paschal 
ceremonies  were  independent  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
lamb  ;  and  these,  he  thinks,  may  have  been  attached 
to  the  commencement  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  on  the  14th  Nisan.  This  does  not  answer  the 
whole  of  the  contradiction  ;  for  the  Synoptists  state 
almost  explicitly,  that  the  Last  Supper  was  held  on 
the  evening  of  the  I4th-i5th  Nisan  ;  but,  if  true,  it 
would  make  it  easier  to  understand  how  the  mistake 
had  arisen.  The  Last  Supper  would  soon  come  to  be 
identified  with  the  Passover,  and  to  this  identification 
other  portions  of  the  history  would  be  made  to  con- 
form. In  the  Synoptic  narrative,  as  we  have  it,  the 
work  of  re-adjustment  is  still  incomplete,  and  traces  of 
the  original  tradition  are  still  visible. 

In  connection  with  the  Christian  tradition 
that  has  just  been  alluded  to,  we  are  brought  into 
contact  with  the  famous  '  Paschal  Controversy^.' 
This  was  once  one  of  the  hottest  centres  of  dis- 
cussion in  regard  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  but  it 
bids  fair  once  more  to  retire  into  obscurity.  The 
argument  of  the  Tiibingen  School  was  this.  Towards 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  a  strife  arose  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  as  to  the  celebra- 
tion of  Easter  or  the  point  at  which  the  fast  of  Lent 
was  to  be  broken.  A  diversity  of  custom  had  arisen. 
In  the  Roman  Church  the  day  of  the  week  observed 
was  fixed,  the  day  of  the  month  movable.  It  was 
always  the  Friday  that  fell  upon  or  immediately  after 

'  The  view  taken  below  is  §  §  74,  75.  Compare  on  the  other 
mainly  that  of  Steitz,  art.  'Pascha'  side  Hilgenfeld,  £i/a«^.  p.  341  foil, 
in  Herzog.     Cf.  also  Bleek,  Einl. 

P 


St.  John  xii. 


The 
Paschal 
Contro- 
versy. 


THE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION.  [cHAP. 


St.  John  xii. 


Argument 
of  the  Tu- 
bingen 
School 
drawn  from 
this. 


Insufficient- 
ly proved. 


the  14th  Nisan.  In  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  on 
the  contrary,  the  day  of  the  week  was  movable  and 
the  day  of  the  month  fixed — the  14th  Nisan.  The 
Christian  and  Jewish  festivals  were  observed  upon  the 
same  day.  Now  the  Asiatic  Churches  professed  to 
base  their  practice  upon  that  of  the  Apostle  St. 
John.  '  He,'  they  said,  '  while  living  at  Ephesus,  had 
always  observed  the  14th  Nisan.'  And  this  contention 
of  theirs  does  not  seem  to  have  been  questioned. 
Baur  and  his  school  therefore,  assuming  that  what  the 
Apostle  celebrated  was  the  institution  of  the  Last 
Supper,  use  this  as  an  argument  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospel,  in  which,  though  the  Last  Supper 
is  placed  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning  on  the 
first  hours  of  the  14th  Nisan,  according  to  the  ordinary 
reckoning  it  would  fall  upon  the  evening  of  the  13th. 
Without  pressing  this  ambiguity  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  whole  argument  depends  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  Apostle  and  the  Church  of  Asia  Minor  after 
him  celebrated,  not  the  Crucifixion,  but  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This,  however,  is  neither  probable 
in  itself,  nor  does  it  admit  of  historical  proof.  The  one 
passage  that  might  seem  to  deserve  this  title  is  from 
the  testimony  of  Apollinaris  cited  above.  He  says 
'  that  certain  persons  from  ignorance  captiously  urge 
that  on  the  14th  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb  with  His 
disciples,  and  that  on  the  great  day  of  the  feast  He 
Himself  sufi"ered  ^.'  But  even  supposing  (what  there  is 
no  evidence  to  show)  that  Apollinaris  though  an 
Asiatic  bishop,  was  not  a  Qiiartodeciman  himself,  it 

*  EiVt  roivvv  o\  di'  ayvoiav  <pi\o-  Asiatic      bishop,      designates    the 

vuKovai  irepl  tovtoiv  .  .  .  nal  Xtyov-  opinion  of  Polycrates  of  Ephesus, 

aiv,  K.T.X.  Can  this  possibly  be  the  Melito  of  Sardis,  Sagaris,  Papirius, 

way    in    which     Apollinaris,     an  and  Polycarp  himself? 


XII.] 


rilE  DAY  OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 


211 


still  would  not  be  natural  that  he  should  speak  of  the 
main  body  of  the  Church  to  which  he  belonged  in  this 
slighting  way.  It  is  on  all  grounds  more  probable 
that  he  is  alluding  to  some  side  issue  in  the  main 
controversy ;  and  precisely  such  a  side  issue  appears 
to  have  been  raised  in  the  Church  at  Laodicaea ' 
(Euseb.  iv.  26).  The  history  of  the  Paschal  Contro- 
versy is,  however,  too  obscure  for  any  positive 
conclusion  to  be  built  upon  it  ;  and  there  is  the  less 
reason  for  attempting  to  make  it  carry  more  than 
it  will  bear,  that  it  can  in  no  case  affect  the 
argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  For  the 
external  evidence  shows  that  the  Gospel  was  received 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  received  there  at  the  very  time 
when  this  controversy  was  raging^. 

The  real  cause  of  difference  in  the  practice  of  the 
Churches  of  Rome  and  Asia  Minor  appears  to  have 
been  not  so  much  a  conflicting  interpretation  of  the 

'  Eusebius  quotes  the  preface  to  a  original  source  of  the  custom.   The 

work  of  Melito's  upon  the  Passover,  theory  stated  below  (that  of  Bleek) 

\-n\   'SfpoviWinv    IlaiiKou  dvOvnarov  seems  to   me   distinctly  the    more 

rrjs     'Actios   .   .  .   iyivtro      ^TjTrjats  natural  and  probable. 
ttoWt]  iv  AaoSiKfiq.  irfpl  tov  traaxo-       "  It  is  curious  that  Dr.  Hilgenfeld 

Surely  it  is  some  local  controversy  seems  to  have  forgotten   that  the 

that  is  here  described,  and  not  that  only  point  of  alleging  the  Paschal 

which  Polycarp,  as  the  representa-  controversy  is    to   show   that    the 

live     of     the     Asiatic    Churches  fourth  Gospel  was  not    recognised 

generally,  maintained  against  Ani-  in    Asia   Minor.      He  himself  ad- 

cetus.     Something  is  perhaps  to  be  mits  {Evang.  p.  345)    that    it  was 

said  on  the  other  side,  and  I  cannot  recognised  not  only  by  ApoUinaris, 

think  that  any  conclusion  is  to  be  but  also  by  Melito  and  Polycrates. 

asserted  positively;    but  supposing  We  may   add,  by  Tatian   the  pupil 

it  could  be  proved  that  ApoUinaris  of  Justin,    and     by     Irenaeus    the 

was  an    isolated  advocate   of  the  pupil  of  Polycarp.     This  is  indeed 

Roman  practice  in  Asia  Minor,  and  certainly  the  case  ;  but  if  it  is,  the 

that  the  14th  Nisan  was  really  put  Paschal  controversy  ceases  to  have 

forward    by    the     whole     Asiatic  any  importance.     [I  am   indebted 

Church  not  as  the  day  of  the  Cru-  for  the  above  observation  to  a  few 

cifixion  but  as  that  of  the  institution  minutes   conversation    that  I  once 

of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  still  would  enjoyed  with  Professor  Westcott.] 
not  follow  that  this  had  been  the 

P  2 


St.  John  xii. 


Inconclu- 
siveness  of 
the  Paschal 
Contro- 
versy. 


Probable 
origin  of  the 
difFerence  of 
practice. 


212 


THE  DAY  OF    THE   CRUCIFIXION.         [cHAP. 


St.  John  xii. 


Defects  of 
the  Tubin- 
gen theory. 


Gospels  (the  discrepancy  in  which  had  not  yet  been 
noticed),  as  an  accident  in  their  respective  circum- 
stances and  position.  The  '  pillar-apostles  '  remaining 
in  Jerusalem  and  living  for  some  time  on  amicable  terms 
with  their  fellow-countrymen,  did  not  at  once  open  a 
breach  with  Judaism.  They  continued  to  observe  the 
Jewish  festivals ;  and  that  the  more  readily  because 
they  found  it  easy  to  give  them  a  Christian  significa- 
tion. And  the  usage  of  the  Mother-Church  was  carried 
by  St.  John,  its  last  surviving  representative,  into  Asia 
Minor.  Meantime  in  other  parts  of  the  empire  where 
Jewish  customs  were  not  so  predominant  the  week 
was  taken  as  the  unit,  which  the  yearly  festivals 
followed.  Sunday  was  celebrated  (rightly)  as  the  day 
of  the  Lord's  Resurrection,  and  Friday  (also  rightly)  as 
the  day  of  the  Crucifixion  ;  and  the  Easter  festival 
preserved  and  intensified  this  distinction.  Thus  was 
gradually  formed  the  usage  which  was  adopted  by 
the  council  at  Nicaea  as  the  law  of  the  whole  Church. 
But  its  growth  was  accidental,  and  any  dogmatic 
meaning  that  might  be  read  into  it  was  an  after- 
thought. 

So  far  as  a  conjectural  reconstruction  of  the  Paschal 
controversy  is  possible,  this  seems  an  extremely 
plausible  one.  On  the  other  hand,  that  propounded 
by  the  Tubingen  critics,  though  ingenious,  is  far  too 
much  dominated  by  theory.  It  supposes  the  several 
parties  in  the  Church  to  have  been  conscious  of 
their  own  ideal  tendencies  to  a  degree  which  all 
experience  contradicts.  And,  like  so  many  other 
theories  of  that  school,  it  is  only  obtained  by  inverting 
a  great  part  of  the  scanty  materials  of  fact.  It  was 
really  invented  in  order  to  prove  on  ideal  grounds  the 


xn.] 


THE  DAY  OF    THE    CRUCIFIXION. 


213 


rejection  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  the  Church  of  Asia, 
whereas  on  historical  grounds  it  is  little  less  than 
certain  that  that  Church  (at  least  at  this  date, 
170  A.D.)  received  and  acknowledged  it.  But  the 
fundamental  fallacy  by  which  all  the  Tubingen 
reasoning  has  been  vitiated  in  regard  to  the  Gospel, 
is  the  fictitious  Anti-Judaistic  character  which  was 
imagined  for  it.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  above 
Judaism  ;  but  it  has  grown  out  of  it  by  an  organic 
and  natural  process.  Its  author,  as  we  have  seen,  had 
been  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  Jewish  customs  and 
practices  and  habits  of  thought.  They  are  part  of 
himself,  and  he  cannot  disengage  himself  from  them. 
So  far  from  writing  his  Gospel  to  oppose  them,  he 
unconsciously  displays,  and,  we  might  almost  say, 
consciously  justifies  them.  He  has  shown — more, 
perhaps,  than  any  other  Apostle,  more  even  than 
St.  Paul — that  inner  unity  in  which  Jew  and  Greek 
become  one  by  becoming  Christian. 


St.  John  xii. 


CHAPTER    XIIL 


THE   LAST   SUPPER. 


Stjohnxiii. 
vv.  1-17. 


TENDER  and  touching  is  that  brief  preface  with 
which  the  EvangeHst  introduces  the  second 
great  division  of  his  Gospel. 

'  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  when  Jesus 
knew  that  His  hour  was  come  that  He  should  depart 
out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  His 
own  which  were  in  the  world  He  loved  them  unto  the 
end.'  We  can  see  here  the  traces  of  that  reciprocal 
feeling  by  which  the  Apostle  himself  was  animated, 
and  which  it  is  difficult  to  believe  to  have  been 
assumed. 

It  was  the  custom  for  slaves  to  wash  the  feet  of  the 
guests  before  sitting  down  to  meat  ;  and  we  are 
tempted  to  suppose  that  the  symbolical  act,  which  our 
Evangelist  relates  here,  took  the  place  of  this  custom. 
The  supposition  would  be  confirmed,  if  ytvoixevov  for 
y€voixivov  (which  is  adopted  by  Tischendorf,  and  sanc- 
tioned by  Ellicott  and  Meyer)  were  the  correct  reading 
in  ver.  2.  But  the  expression  in  ver.  4,  eyetperai  e/c  tov 
hd-nvov  hardly  seems  to  favour  this.  It  is  best  there- 
fore to  leave  it  an  open  question,  at  what  part  of  the 
supper  this  incident  occurred,  and  how  it  is  to  be  fitted 


THE  LAST  SUPPER. 


215 


in  with  the  narration  of  the  Synoptists.  It  will  be 
noticed,  that  the  narrative  of  St.  John  touches  that  of 
St.  Luke  (xxii.  24-27)  in  a  remarkable  manner  at 
vers.  14,  16,  ('  The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord'). 
If  we  are  to  combine  these  two  narratives  it  must 
be  in  some  such  way  as  that  proposed  by  Bishop 
Ellicott^  We  must  assume  that  the  dispute  among 
the  disciples  '  which  was  to  be  greatest,'  had  taken 
place  on  the  way  to  the  upper  chamber,  and  that  this 
menial  act  on  the  part  of  their  Master  was  intended 
as  a  tacit  rebuke  to  them.  But  there  are  three  objec- 
tions against  this  :  (i)  that  the  dispute  itself,  in  the 
position  accorded  to  it  by  St.  Luke  in  the  midst  of 
the  final  pathetic  leave-taking,  seems  singularly  out  of 
place  ;  (2)  that  precisely  such  a  dispute  has  occurred 
before  ;  (3)  that  the  Johannean  version  does  not  seem 
to  recognise  or  agree  with  it.  There  it  would  seem  as 
if  the  act  were  quite  spontaneous,  and  had  no  occasion 
or  suggestion  from  without.  It  seems  most  probable 
then  to  suppose  that  St.  Luke  has  confused  two 
separate  traditions,  that  which  St.  John  has  preserved 
in  its  original  form,  and  that  which  properly  belongs 
to  the  place  indicated  in  Matt.  xx.  20.  One  thing  is 
clear,  that  St.  John,  if  he  has  read  St.  Luke's  Gospel 
at  this  point,  has  not  copied  or  followed  it.  He  pro- 
ceeds with  the  same  peculiar  independence  which  we 
have  noticed  in  him  all  through.  Perhaps  in  some 
dim  remote  way  St.  Luke's  narrative  may  have 
helped  to  recall  to  him  a  few  sentences  towards  the 
end.  But  it  has  not  done  more.  It  does  not  give  a 
hint  that  could  lead  to  the  construction  of  the  scene 
as  a  fiction.      '  He  riseth  from  supper,    and    layeth 

'  Huh.  Led.  p.  324. 


St.  John  xiii. 
vv.  I-17. 


Relation  of 
St.  John's 
narrative  to 
St.  Luke's. 


2l6 


THE  LAST  SUPPER, 


[chap. 


St.  John  xiii. 
vv.  1-17. 

Its  striking 
circumstan- 
tiality. 


And  psy- 
chological 
truth. 


Symbolical 
character  of 
the  act. 


aside  His  garments,  and  took  a  towel  and  girded 
Himself.  After  that  He  poureth  water  into  a  bason, 
and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet  with  the  towel 
wherewith  He  was  girded.'  This  is  the  realism  of 
history  indeed.  The  very  mode  of  using  the  towel  is 
especially  described.  The  words  addressed  to  Peter, 
'  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not  now,  but  thou  shalt 
know  hereafter,'  do  not  read  as  if  they  belonged  to  an 
ideal  scene.  If  it  is,  the  illusion  is  wonderfully  kept 
up.  What  interest  would  the  readers  of  the  Gospel 
have  in  the  mental  development  of  a  single  Apostle  ? 
To  suppose  that  it  was  intended  as  a  type  of  their 
own  would  make  it  an  incredible  subtlety.  Peter's 
remonstrance,  and  then  the  impetuosity  with  which  he 
rushes  into  the  opposite  extreme,  are  very  true  to  his 
character  as  delineated  elsewhere.  The  carefulness 
with  which  here,  as  we  saw  in  the  account  of  the 
cleansing  of  the  temple,  the  successive  stages  in  the 
action  are  described,  proclaim  the  eye-witness.  And 
if  here  and  there  fragments  of  other  discourses  or 
fragments  of  imperfect  authenticity  find  their  way  in, 
this  is  still  not  incompatible  with  the  work  of  an  eye- 
witness describing  what  he  has  seen  after  years  of 
reflection. 

The  action  is  real,  but  it  is  also  symbolical  ;  just  as 
again  in  xx.  23  (the  'afflatus')  ;  and  there  is  something 
not  altogether  dissimilar  in  Matt,  xviii.  2  (the  little 
child  taken  as  a  pattern).  Symbolical  action  probably 
played  a  larger  part  in  our  Lord's  teaching,  than  we 
should  directly  gather  from  the  Gospels.  It  attaches 
itself  naturally  to  the  method  of  drawing  lessons  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  passing  moment  (Matt.  iv.  19, 
viii.  22  ;  John  iv.  10,  &c.) ;    and  holds  a  place  midway 


XIII.] 


THE  LAST  SUPPER. 


217 


vv.  8-10. 


between  the  parable  and  symbolical  miracle.     It  is  a  ;St.Johnxiii 
parable  acted,  but  without  miraculous  accessories. 

There  is  a  touch  of  the  Galilean  fisherman  as  well 
as  of  the  impetuous  Apostle  in  Peter's  request  that  his 
hands  and  his  head  may  be  washed,  and  not  only  his 
feet.  He  at  once  imagines  that  the  act  must  have 
some  physical  virtue.  It  is  explained  to  him  where 
the  symbolism  lies.  He  who  has  once  bathed  still 
needs  to  wash,  but  only  that  part  of  him  which  is 
soiled  by  the  dust  of  the  way.  So  he  who  has  once 
undergone  the  decisive  crisis  of  conversion,  must  still 
exercise  daily  repentance,  but  only  for  his  daily  trans- 
gressions. Perhaps  we  may  regard  this  as  a  secondary 
application  of  the  foot-washing  suggested  by  Peter's 
conduct ;  its  first  intention  must  have  been  to  teach 
simply  a  lesson  of  humility,  or  rather  the  higher  lesson 
of  ministering  love. 

A  saying  like  this  in  ver.  10  (the  reply  to  Peter)  bears 
the  strongest  internal  marks  of  its  own  authenticity. 
It  is  perfectly  in  the  manner  of  the  Synoptists,  though 
not  even  remotely  suggested  by  them. 

There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose,  with  some 
critics,  that  the  foot  washing  is  intended  to  take  the 
place  of  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist.  The  random 
guesses  that  have  been  made  to  account  for  the 
omission  of  the  latter,  are  sufficient  to  refute  the 
theories  of  which  they  form  a  part.  The  simple  ex- 
planation is  that  the  subject  was  too  familiar  to  need 
repetition.  We  gather  as  well  from  the  Acts  as  from 
I  Cor.  xi.  that  Eucharistic  feasts  were  common  in  all 
Christian  Churches.  No  doubt  the  history  of  the  rite 
and  the  rite  itself  were  both  well  known  and  under- 
stood.    And  we  may  imagine  that  a  thorough  reform 


The  institu- 
tion of  the 
Eucharist. 


2l8 


THE  LAST  SUPPER. 


[chap. 


St.Johnxiii. 


w.  18-30. 


of  the  Agapae  would  follow  upon  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  But  if  the  practice  of  the  Church 
generally  was  in  this  respect  in  a  satisfactory  condi- 
tion, St.  John  naturally  would  not  think  it  necessary 
to  refer  to  the  subject  further.  At  the  same  time  we 
can  hardly  help  inferring  that  he  did  not  assign  to  it 
that  cardinal  and  almost  exclusive  importance  which 
some  are  found  to  claim  for  it  in  the  present  day. 
Otherwise  he  would  not  have  shrunk  from  repetition, 
as  we  see  from  his  minute  treatment  of  the  events 
of  the  Passion. 

The  Evangelist  relates,  however,  an  episode  which 
is  necessary  to  keep  up  the  thread  of  the  narrative — 
the  discovery  and  exit  of  the  traitor.  And  he  does 
this  with  singular  vividness  and  exactness,  as  the 
synopsis  of  the  four  Gospels  is  enough  to  show. 
The  fourth  Gospel  is  the  fullest,  the  most  minute,  the 
most  lifelike,  the  most  intelligible.  It  tells  us  that 
Jesus  was  troubled  in  making  the  announcement. 
'  Then  the  disciples  looked  one  on  another,  doubting 
of  whom  He  spake.'  And  the  passage  that  follows 
has  a  precision  which  is  imperfectly  preserved  in  the 
English  version.  This  has  been  well  brought  out  by 
Professor  Lightfoot  in  his  recent  work  on  Revision^. 
St.  John  was  reclining  on  the  bosom  of  his  Master, 
and  he  suddenly  threw  back  his  head  upon  His 
breast  to  ask  a  question.  The  change  of  posture  is 
emphasized  and  illustrated  by  a  change  in  each  of  the 
words,  verb,  preposition,  noun  ;  o.vaK^i\iivo<i — dfaTieo-cbi^, 
kv — eTTt,  /coAttw — cn^Qo-i.  The  exactness  of  this  is 
wonderful.      And  the  mode  in  which  the  announce- 

^  p.  72.     Cf.  also  Meyer,  ad  loc. 


XIII.] 


THE    LAST  SUFFER. 


219 


ment  is  made  is  much  more  delicate  and  natural  than 
in  the  Synoptists.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  aloud  who 
it  is  that  shall  betray  Him.  If  He  had  really  done  so, 
would  it  not  be  strange  that  Judas  should  immediately 
commit  himself  to  the  act  which  was  to  be  his  own 
exposure  ?  In  an  undertone  He  conveys  to  St.  John 
the  sign  by  which  the  traitor  shall  be  indicated.  St. 
John  tells  St.  Peter,  who  had  at  first  prompted  the 
question.  But  from  what  follows  it  appears  that  the 
warning  does  not  go  all  round  the  table.  Meantime 
another  communication  is  seen  to  pass  between  our 
Lord  and  Judas,  who  immediately  goes  out.  Then 
the  reader  is  carried  farther  into  the  interior  of  the 
room,  and  hears  the  whispered  comments  and  con- 
jectures of  the  disciples  :  '  He  has  gone  to  buy  the 
necessary  provisions  for  the  passover,  which  was  to  be 
the  next  evening,'  or  '  to  give  money  to  those  who  are 
too  poor  to  provide  for  themselves.'  '  But  the  traitor,'  it 
is  added,  with  a  single,  profoundly  though  unconsci- 
ously tragic,  stroke, '  having  received  the  sop  went  out, 
and  it  was  night ! ' 

In  the  brief  interlude  which  follows  it  is  perhaps 
probable,  though  a  matter  of  conjecture,  that  we  have 
words  which  do  not  all  equally  belong  to  the  present 
context.  The  glorification  of  the  Son  in  and  by  the 
Father  is  a  peculiarly  Johannean  theme,  and  the 
transitions  of  subject  are  abrupt ;  at  the  same  time 
the  remaining  discourses  are  given  at  such  length  that, 
with  the  Synoptic  matter  to  insert  besides,  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  room  for  much  condensation  ;  verses 
34,  35  (the  'mandatum')  come  in  curiously  as  a  paren- 
thesis. But  the  matter  of  them  is  attested  in  the 
amplest    manner    by    the    Synoptists    and    in    the 


St.  John  xiii. 


vv.  .^1-35- 


THE  LAST  SUPPER. 


St.Johnxiii. 


36-38- 


Apostolic  Epistles.  Neither  is  it  at  all  improbable 
that  the  charge  should  be  repeated  as  a  parting 
address  to  the  disciples.  The  passage  is  important 
as  showing  how  essentially  St.  John  occupies  the  same 
standpoint  as  the  other  Apostles.  If  ethical  questions 
seem  to  be  subordinated  in  his  Gospel,  it  is  from  no 
theoretic  difference  as  to  their  place  and  value  or  as 
to  their  adjustment  with  other  parts  of  the  Christian 
system  ;  it  is  only  that  the  natural  bent  of  his  mind 
leads  him  to  lay  stress  rather  on  the  theological  side 
of  Christianity — a  side  which  all  the  Apostolic 
writers  recognise,  and  to  which  St.  Paul  at  least 
has  given  a  development  little  less  complete  and 
profound. 

The  account  of  Peter's  protestation,  and  the 
prophecy  of  his  fall,  coupled  with  that  of  the 
Resurrection  and  Appearance  in  Galilee,  seems  to 
have  been  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  slightly  coloured 
by  the  event.  The  account  in  St.  John  is  simpler 
and  more  vague  ;  though  the  phrases, '  Whither  I  go  ye 
cannot  come,'  '  Thou  canst  not  follow  Me,'  seem  to  be 
almost  a  Johannean  formula  (cf.  vii.  34-36,  viii.  21, 
xiv.  4).  It  has  doubtless  a  basis  of  authenticity,  as 
appears  from  the  direct  reference  here  to  the  previous 
discourse ;  but  how  this  is  to  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  passages  where  it  occurs,  it  is  beyond  our 
power  to  determine. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE     LAST     DISCOURSES. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


WE  come  now  to  the  last  great  discourse,  which 
constitutes  a  striking  and  pecuHar  element  in 
the  fourth  Gospel.  It  is  apparently  intended  to  be 
conceived  of  as  only  momentarily  broken  at  ver.  31. 
Our  Lord  and  His  disciples  arise  from  the  table  as  if 
to  go.  But  we  see  from  xviii,  i  (e^T/A^e)  that  they  had 
not  yet  left  the  house,  or  at  least  the  city.  We  must 
therefore  suppose  that  the  contents  of  chh.  xv  and 
xvi,  with  the  prayer  of  ch.  xvii,  were  still  spoken  in 
the  upper  room,  though  after  the  first  motion  for 
departure. 

The  argument  would  not  have  any  great  weight, 
but  yet  we  should  be  led  in  some  degree  to  infer  from  |  '^^l^l^ 
this  that  the  Evangelist  had  enlarged  upon  his  |  these  dis- 
original.  And  the  whole  character  of  the  discourses 
goes  to  strengthen  this  conclusion.  They  have  been 
freely  reproduced ;  probably  portions  of  other  dis- 
courses, though  all  belonging  to  these  last  days, 
worked  up  in  them.  It  is  a  well-known  psychological 
fact  that  words,  conversations,  are  apt  to  attach  them- 
selves to  occasions  different  from  those  which  in  the 
first  instance  gave  rise  to  them.     This  is  especially 


Present  and 
original 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


the  case  where  the  original  occasions  have  had 
nothing  very  marked  or  distinctive  about  them,  and 
where  some  great  and  impressive  event  is  found  in 
near  proximity  to  them.  The  lesser  moments  are 
gathered  up  and  drawn  as  it  were  into  the  greater,  so 
that  it  represents  an  aggregate  of  parts  that  once  had 
a  separate  existence. 

Some  such  process  seems  to  have  been  at  work  in 
the  mind  of  the  Apostle.  And  not  only  has  he  mixed 
together  portions  of  different  discourses,  but  he  has 
also  shaped,  moulded,  developed  their  substance  in 
such  a  way  that  we  are  no  more  able  to  draw  the  line 
at  the  point  where  the  old  ends  and  where  the  new 
begins.  But  it  is  clear  that  he  has  done  this  in  per- 
fect good  faith  and  quite  unconsciously.  He  sees  the 
scene,  the  place  and  the  actors,  vividly  before  him. 
And  the  discourses  are  all  no  doubt  repeated  under 
the  impression  that  they  represent  what  was  actually 
spoken.  But  it  is  impossible  for  an  active  mind  to 
retain  the  exact  recollection  of  words  over  a  space 
of  perhaps  fifty  years.  Little  by  little  the  products 
of  its  own  individuality  will  filter  in  and  disturb  the 
clear  element  of  objective  fact.  But  this  will  take 
place  so  gradually  and  insensibly,  that  there  will  be 
no  consciousness  of  change.  The  continuity  of  recol- 
lection will  seem  to  be  as  perfect  as  that  of  per- 
sonality. And  indeed  the  one  will  be  a  very  near 
figure  of  the  other.  There  will  be  an  inner  soul  of 
unity  while  the  tissue  and  composition  of  the  outward 
particles  has  changed.  1 

The  wonder  is  indeed  less  that  the  Evangelical 
discourses  have  undergone  modification,  than  that 
they  should  be  preserved   so  perfectly  as  they  are. 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


223 


It  would  not  have  been  so  in  modern  times.  But 
a  Jew  was  thrown  much  more  entirely  upon  his 
memory ;  and  we  have  evidence  quite  apart  from  the 
Evangelical  tradition  that  the  Jewish  memory  was 
singularly  tenacious,  A  great  part  of  the  Talmud 
was  preserved  orally,  and  it  has  '  all  the  appearance 
of  notes  taken  down  at  short-hand  '.' 

The  reason  why  the  Synoptic  discourses  surpass 
those  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  accuracy,  in  spite  of  the 
greater  number  of  hands  through  which  they  have 
passed,  is,  first,  because  they  were  so  much  sooner 
fixed  in  writing  (the  greater  part  of  them  at  least 
twenty  years),  and  secondly,  because  of  the  inferior 
mental  capacity  and  moral  authority  of  those  who 
bore  and  transmitted  them.  A  strong  mind  and 
character  is  much  less  likely  to  retain  a  faithful  recol- 
lection of  words  than  a  weak  one.  Its  natural  impulse 
is  to  creation.  Its  faculties  are  too  active  to  rest. 
They  work  unconsciously  upon  the  material  to  which 
they  have  access  ;  and  when  it  comes  to  be  brought 
out  again  after  a  long  period  of  incubation,  there  is 
nothing  to  tell  that  it  is  different,  but  it  is  not  really 
the  same. 

We  shall  then  renounce  the  attempt  to  discriminate 
closely  between  the  subjective  and  objective  elements 
in  this  parting  discourse.  We  will  first  give  a  running 
abstract  of  its  contents,  and  then  endeavour  to  group 
them  as  much  as  possible  under  a  few  heads,  observ- 
ing what  amount  of  confirmation  they  receive  from 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  or  other  sources. 

Our  Lord  turns  from  Peter  to  the  other  Apostles. 

'  Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  pp.  xlvi.  xciv.  (thirteenth  ed.).  Compare 
Westcott,  Introd.  p.  154. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


224 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


vv.  8-11. 


They  now  knew  that  the  time  of  His  departure  was 
near  at  hand.  And  He  cheers  their  spirits  with  words 
of  comfort  and  of  promise.  He  bids  them  not  to  be 
troubled,  but  to  have  faith  in  Himself  and  in  the 
Father  who  sent  Him,  He  is  but  going  to  prepare 
them  a  mansion  in  His  Father's  house.  He  would 
soon  return  'with  power  and  great  glory'  and  take 
them  to  dwell  with  Him  for  ever. 

But  what- is  the  way  to  these  mansions  above.-* 
asks  the  honest  but  slow  and  unapprehensive  Thomas; 
he  knows  not  whither  his  Lord  is  going,  and  how 
should  he  know  the  way }  He  is  reminded  of  the 
nature  of  that  kingdom  that  had  been  so  long  and 
so  fully  put  before  him.  It  is  centred  in  the  person 
of  its  King.  He  is  the  Truth,  in  that  He  has  revealed 
its  nature,  and  that  of  all  the  conditions  which  lead 
up  to  it  and  which  it  fulfils.  He  is  the  Life,  inas- 
much as  He  is  the  source  of  that  eternal  life,  which 
is  only  another  name  for  the  blissful  possession  of  the 
Kingdom  itself,  and  which  is  only  to  be  obtained 
through  faith  in  Him.  And  therefore  He  also  is  the 
Way,  because  it  is  by  entering  into  a  certain  relation 
to  Him  that  both  Truth  and  Life,  i.  e.  the  Kingdom 
in  its  fulness  of  illumination  and  glory  is  to  be  appro- 
priated. The  way  to  the  Son  is  the  way  also  to  the 
Father.  To  know  the  Son  is  to  know  the  Father, 
nay,  to  see  Him. 

These  last  words  are  taken  up  by  another  disciple, 
Philip.  He  is  a  Jew,  and  has  inherited  all  the  tra- 
ditions and  ideas  of  a  Jew.  His  thoughts  at  once 
run  to  the  Old  Testament  theophanies.  These  espe- 
cially signalized  and  accompanied  the  giving  of  the 
first  Law  by  Moses.     Philip  was  by  this  time  aware 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


225 


that  he  was  in  the  presence  of  another  and  greater 
Lawgiver  than  Moses — that  Prophet  whom  Moses 
had  foretold.  He  looked,  like  all  the  Jews  of  his  time, 
to  see  the  wonders  of  the  old  dispensation  repeated. 
Hence  his  question,  '  Lord,  show  us  the  Father  and 
it  sufficeth  us.'  How  touching  is  the  Lord's  reply  ! 
'  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou 
not  known  Me,  Philip .'' ' — Are  not  these  Jewish  pre- 
judices yet  broken  down  .-'  Are  you  still  so  far  below 
that  high  and  true  conception  to  which  I  have  tried 
to  raise  you  } — '  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father.'  The  Son  of  God  had  come  into  the  world 
to  reveal  the  Father  to  man.  His  own  assurance  of 
the  fact  ought  to  be  enough.  But  if  not,  it  was  con- 
firmed by  His  works.  These  at  least  afforded  proof 
that  the  Father  dwelt  in  Him  who  performed  them. 
As  revelations  of  the  divine  love,  and  as  manifesta- 
tions of  the  divine  power,  on  both  sides  they  pro- 
claimed their  origin. 

Yet  the  believing  disciple  shall  do  in  one  sense 
even  greater  works  than  these.  They  had  been  con- 
fined to  a  little  corner  of  the  earth  and  to  a  short 
space  of  time.  But  the  Apostles  and  their  successors 
should  spread  them  through  all  the  world.  The 
return  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  was  to  be  a  signal 
for  the  diffusion  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  diffusion 
would  be  itself  a  further  testimony  to  the  glory  of 
the  Son. 

Meanwhile  to  the  Apostles  in  their  labours  a  two- 
fold assistance  would  be  accorded  ;  on  the  one  hand 
through  prayer  to  the  Father  in  the  name  (i.  e.  in 
complete  devotion  to  the  cause  and  Person)  of  the 
Son  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  through  the  gift  of  the 

Q 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


vv.  12-17. 


226 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


vv.  22-24. 


vv.  25,  26. 


vv.  27-31. 


Paraclete,  who  should  take  their  Master's  place  after 
He  was  gone,  and  should  abide  with  the  Church  per- 
petually— with  the  Church  and  not  with  the  world. 

Through  the  Paraclete,  the  Lord  Himself  would 
return  to  His  own,  and  then  their  communion  with 
Him  should  be  full.  The  Triune  God  should  dwell 
in  them  and  reveal  Himself  to  them. 

The  Apostle  Jude,  supposing  that  the  revelation 
would  be  a  visible  one,  asks  how  it  could  be  made  to 
the  Church  and  not  also  to  the  world  .''  He  is  told  in 
reply,  that  it  will  be  a  spiritual  revelation,  and  that 
a  certain  spiritual  susceptibility  will  be  needed  in 
order  to  receive  it.  This  spiritual  susceptibility  is 
shown  by  love,  and  obedience  to  the  divine  com- 
mands. Those  who  do  not  exhibit  these  necessarily 
can  have  no  part  either  in  the  Son  or  in  the  Father. 

Then  follows  a  somewhat  further  definition  of  the 
office  of  the  Paraclete.  He  shall  instruct  or  teach  the 
disciples.  He  shall  tell  them  new  things,  and  call  to 
their  remembrance  old. 

And  finally  the  discourse  returns  to  the  point  from 
which  it  started.  Its  object  had  been  to  reassure  the 
sorrowful  disciples  against  their  Lord's  departure,  and 
with  words  of  reassurance  and  consolation  it  con- 
cludes. These  are  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  leave- 
taking  or  farewell.  '  Peace  I  leave  with  you '  is  the 
usual  benediction  at  parting  in  the  East.  But  this 
was  no  common  benediction,  such  as  the  world  gives. 
Why  should  the  disciples  be  troubled  .''  Their  Master 
goes  but  to  return.  He  goes  to  a  state  of  greater 
power  and  glory,  whence  He  would  advance  His 
kingdom  more  effectually.  If  their  love  was  real, 
and  really  bound  up  in  their  Lord  and  in  His  glory, 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


227 


this  would  be  a  cause  of  rejoicing,  not  of  dismay. 
A  time  would  come  when  these  words  would  prove 
themselves  to  be  true.  But  now  they  must  cease,  for 
the  end  is  near. 

There  is  a  short  break  or  pause,  during  which  the 
company  rises  as  if  to  go.  But  as  they  are  rising  the 
discourse  is  resumed.  It  opens  this  time  with  an 
allegor}^  similar  to  that  which  we  found  in  chap.  x. 
The  meaning  is  simple.  Christ  is  the  vine.  Those 
who  believe  in  Him  are  the  branches  or  fruit-bearing 
shoots.  He  is  their  life,  and  it  is  through  Him  alone 
that  they  can  bring  their  fruit  to  maturity.  Without 
Him  they  are  barren  and  wither,  they  are  cut  off  and 
cast  into  the  fire.  With  Him  and  in  Him  they  bring 
forth  fruit  abundantly.  This  is  a  cogent  reason  for 
seeking  to  abide  in  Him.  The  conditions  of  abiding 
in  Him  are  obedience  and  love.  Through  these  the 
disciples  would  come  to  share  the  joy  of  their  Master's 
victory  over  sin  and  death. 

In  love  He  was  to  be  their  pattern.  No  love  could 
be  greater  than-  His.  He  was  even  now  to  die  for 
them,  as  a  man  would  die  for  his  friends.  They  were 
His  friends,  the  partners  of  His  confidence,  chosen  by 
Him  out  of  the  whole  world,  and  drawing  their  life 
from  Him.     Once  more  let  them  imitate  His  love. 

The  love  of  Christ  is  enmity  with  the  world.  There- 
fore the  world  will  persecute  those  who  love  Him. 
They  will  deal  with  the  servant  as  they  dealt  with  the 
Master — and  that  because  they  are  blinded  and  in- 
fatuated. They  cannot  plead  the  excuse  of  ignorance. 
They  have  heard  the  words  and  seen  the  works  of  the 
Messiah.  But  they  have  'hated  Him  without  a  cause,' 
that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled.    Only  in  contrast 

Q  2 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


ch.xv.  I-II. 


18-27. 


228 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


ch  xvi.  I-4. 


vv.  5-15- 


vv.  16-28. 


with  the  hatred  of  the  world  shall  be  the  testimony 
that  is  borne  by  the  Paraclete  through  the  disciples 
and  by  the  disciples,  from  their  own  experience. 

Thus  the  disciples  have  received  a  distinct  fore- 
warning of  what  is  to  happen  to  them,  so  that  they 
will  be  armed  against  their  fate  when  it  comes. 

And  they  are  sorrowful ;  yet  it  is  expedient  that 
their  Master  should  leave  them.  When  He  is  gone, 
the  Paraclete  will  come.  He  will  be  the  champion  of 
the  faithful  against  their  enemy  the  world.  He  will 
convince,  convict,  expose,  call  to  account  and  put  to 
shame  the  world  with  respect  to  three  things  ;  first, 
with  regard  to  its  own  sin  in  rejecting  the  Son  of 
God ;  secondly,  with  regard  to  His  righteousness, 
signed  and  sealed  by  His  glorious  Ascension — glorious 
even  though  for  a  time  it  causes  the  pain  of  loss  to 
His  disciples  ;  thirdly,  with  regard  to  the  judgment 
which  is  thereby  meted  out  to  the  Prince  of  darkness. 
In  respect  to  all  these  three  things  will  the  Paraclete 
hold  up  a  mirror,  as  it  were,  before  the  world,  and 
make  it  see  them  in  their  true  colours.  They  will 
either  repent  in  dust  and  ashes,  or  their  sin  will  be 
the  greater.  Besides  this  office  of  conviction  as  against 
the  world,  the  Paraclete  shall  dispense  instruction  to 
the  disciples.  To  them  He  shall  be  the  Spirit  of 
Truth.  The  hidden  things  of  the  future  and  the 
mystery  of  Christ  and  God  He  shall  reveal,  and  that 
shortly,  when  at  His  (the  Spirit's)  coming,  Christ 
Himself  should  return  to  His  disciples. 

Soon  they  were  to  be  separated,  but  soon  again  the 
parting  was  to  end.  In  answer  to  the  perplexed 
enquiry  which  Jesus  sees  upon  the  faces  of  His  dis- 
ciples, He  does  not  explain  the  words  further,  but 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


!29 


merely  gives  them  emphasis  and  vivid  reality  by  the 
Old  Testament  figure  of  the  woman  in  travail.  Now 
they  have  sorrow,  but  then  their  sorrow  shall  be 
turned  into  joy.  When  the  Paraclete  is  come  they 
shall  ask  no  questions  ;  they  shall  put  up  no  prayer 
that  is  not  answered :  for  then  their  faith  will  be 
ripe.  They  will  make  no  more  random  petitions, 
such  as  Philip's  but  a  moment  ago.  They  will  know 
what  spirit  they  are  of,  and  they  will  ask  accordingly. 
They  will  pray  in  the  name  and  spirit  of  the  Son,  in 
complete  devotion  to  and  reliance  upon  Him,  as 
identified  with  His  cause  and  glory.  And  they  shall 
receive  what  they  ask  for.  It  shall  be  no  longer  as 
when  their  Master  was  with  them  'in  the  flesh'  and 
told  them  divine  things  in  parable  and  figure.  Then, 
through  the  Paraclete,  He  shall  tell  them  of  the 
Father,  not  in  figures  but  in  plain  words.  Then 
they  shall  know  more  fully,  what  indeed  already  they 
believe,  that  from  the  Father  He  Himself  was  come, 
and  that  to  the  Father  He  returned. 

This  provokes  from  the  Apostles  a  profession  of 
faith,  which  is  however  damped  by  the  announce- 
ment of  their  approaching  desertion.  Yet  no  deser- 
tion of  theirs  can  touch  Him,  who  is  one  with  the 
Father,  and  with  whom  the  Father  continually  abides. 

One  more  parting  word.  The  peace  that  Jesus 
leaves  to  His  disciples  is  the  peace  that  He  has 
won  by  His  own  victory  over  the  world — a  peace 
which  no  earthly  tribulations  can  shake,  and  which 
they  shall  share. 

Touching  and  sublime  as  this  is,  and  much  as  we 
may  hesitate  to  exercise  criticism  upon  it,  we  cannot 
but  recognize  a  change  from  the  simple  compact  lucid 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


vv.  29-33. 


Criticism 
of  the  Dis- 
course. 


230 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


addresses  and  exposition  of  the  Synoptists.  They  too 
can  be  profound,  and  St.  John  too  can  be  simple. 
But  both  the  profundity  and  the  simpHcity  are  different. 
This  appears  not  so  much  in  single  verses  as  when  we 
look  at  the  discourse  as  a  whole.  In  all  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  imperfectly  as  they  are  put  together,  there  is 
not  a  single  discourse  that  could  be  called  involved  in 
structure,  and  yet  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to 
refuse  this  epithet  to  the  discourse  before  us  as  given 
by  St.  John.  The  different  subjects  are  not  kept 
apart,  but  are  continually  crossing  and  entangling  one 
another.  The  later  subjects  are  anticipated  in  the 
course  of  the  earlier ;  the  earlier  return  in  the  later. 

For  instance,  the  connection  in  xiv.  12-17  is  difficult 
but  real.  The  Son  is  glorified,  borne  witness  to,  as 
well  by  His  own  works  as  by  those  which  the  dis- 
ciples shall  do  in  His  name  after  He  is  gone.  They 
shall  do  them  through  prayer  and  the  help  of  the 
Spirit.  But  there  is  hardly  a  place  in  this  connection 
for  ver.  15,  'If  ye  love  Me,  keep  My  commandments.' 
It  seems  to  have  strayed  in  from  the  section  below, 
verses  20-24.  We  can  trace  perhaps  the  subtle  associ- 
ation of  ideas  which  has  led  the  Apostle  to  introduce 
it,  but  it  is  an  excrescence  upon  the  argument,  to 
which  no  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  the  Synoptists. 

Again,  on  a  larger  scale,  we  see  that  the  description 
of  the  functions  of  the  Paraclete  is  broken  up,  we  can- 
not but  think  unnecessarily,  into  five  fragments — xiv. 
16,  17  ;  xiv.  25,  26  ;  xv.  26  ;  xvi.  8-15  ;  xvi.  23-25.  It 
would  surely  have  gained  in  clearness  and  perspicuity 
if  these  fragments  had  been  thrown  together.  The 
personaHty  too  of  the  Paraclete  and  His  functions  in 
relation  to  the  Son  need  further  definition.     This  is 


xrv.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


231 


seen  from  the  disagreement  among  commentators  as 
to  the  interpretation  and  apphcation  of  a  great  part  of 
the  passage  from  xvi.  8-25.  The  coming  of  the 
Paraclete  is  spoken  of  in  terms  which  seem  to  identify 
it  with  the  promised  return  of  the  Son  ;  the  return  of 
the  Son  is  connected  with  attributes  which  seem  to 
belong  specially  to  the  Paraclete.  And  yet  the  two 
are  categorically  distinguished  in  xiv.  16. 

Again,  another  main  subject  of  the  discourse,  the 
relation  of  the  Church  and  the  world,  is  intersected 
just  in  the  same  way.  One  portion  of  it  is  found  in 
xiv.  22-24,  another  in  xv.  18-25,  ^  third  in  xvi.  1-3, 
besides  scattered  references  in  single  verses.  We  are 
strongly  tempted  to  suppose,  in  spite  of  xv.  20 — which 
however  refers  to  the  earlier  occasion  in  Matt.  x. 
22-25 — that  all  this  section  is  simply  the  discourse  in 
Mark  xiii.  9-13  transposed.  The  allegory  oif  the  vine 
and  the  branches  also  appears  to  belong  to  a  different 
and  more  didactic  period.  It  breaks  the  thread,  and 
has  little  bearing  upon  the  object  of  the  discourse 
here,  which  is  to  comfort  the  disciples  in  the  prospect 
of  their  Lord's  departure. 

Conjectural  reconstructions  are  precarious  things, 
but  there  seems  reason  to  suppose  that  the  elements 
of  the  original  discourse  were  somewhat  simpler  than 
they  appear,  and  it  is  open  to  us  at  least  to  mark  out 
those  which  have  most  coherence  in  themselves,  and 
seem  best  to  suit  the  situation. 

But  the  question  how  far  the  original  matter  of  the 
discourse  was  grouped  in  its  present  connection,  is 
subordinate  to  that  other  question  how  far  the  dis- 
course in  its  present  state  is  to  be  traced  back  to  an 
objective  original  at  all.     We  may  consider  it  perhaps 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


232 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


under  these  heads  : — (i)  the  departure  and  the  return, 
(2)  the  Paraclete,  (3)  the  vine  and  its  branches,  (4) 
the  disciples  and  the  world. 

(i)  Now  the  conception  of  the  departure  and  the 
return  is  not  very  fixed  and  definite.  There  is  indeed 
but  one  point  of  departure,  but  there  may  be  three 
different  modes  of  return — the  Resurrection,  the 
Second  Advent  or  Parousia  of  the  Son,  or  the  Gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Evangelist,  as  we  have  said, 
has  not  quite  clearly  distinguished  between  these.  In 
the  first  place  where  it  is  mentioned,  the  return  is 
apparently  the  Parousia :  '  If  I  go  and  prepare  a 
place  for  you,  I  will  come  again,  and  receive  you  unto 
Myself.'  Elsewhere  it  seems  to  have  reference  rather 
to  the  coming  of  the  Paraclete,  through  whom  the 
Saviour  Himself  would  be  restored  to  His  own, 
though  in  spiritual  presence.  So  in  xiv.  19-24,  and  xvi. 
17-25.  To  the  return  of  the  Saviour  in  the  Paraclete 
there  is  no  immediate  parallel  in  the  Synoptists ;  but 
it  is  remarkable  how  close  is  the  logical  development 
from  them.  In  the  ground-document  of  the  Synop- 
tists the  function  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  is  most 
prominently  brought  forward,  is  precisely  this  which  is 
ascribed  to  him  by  St.  John  as  the  champion  of  the 
Church  after  the  departure  of  its  Master.  (Cf.  Mark 
xiii.  1 1  par. :  '  Take  no  thought  what  ye  shall  speak, 
for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost.')  But 
at  the  end  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  in  a  passage  of 
doubtful  originality,  but  at  all  events  not  later  than 
70  A.D.,  the  risen  Saviour  promises  to  be  with  His 
Church  Himself  in  person,  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Putting  these  two  passages  together  we  have  clearly 
all  the  materials  of  the  Johannean  conception. 


XIV.] 


THE  LAS7  DISCOURSES. 


233 


(2)  But  it  will  be  said,  'St.  John  is  the  first  to 
speak  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  terms  so  distinctly  expres- 
sive of  personality.'  Language  seems  almost  to  fail 
when  we  attempt  to  characterize  the  conception  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  contained  in  the  earlier  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  not  yet  that  of  a  Person,  and  yet 
it  is  more  than  the  poetic  personification  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  seems  to  waver  between  this  and  the 
metaphysical  personification  of  intermediate  agencies 
in  the  Alexandrine  philosophy.  The  Spirit  is  dis- 
tinguished from  other  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
Essence  more  by  its  functions  than  by  its  nature. 
Even  with  St.  Paul  the  conception  is  still  fluid. 
Speaking  of  the  Spirit  as  the  animating  principle  of  the 
new  dispensation,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  '  the  Lord 
is  that  Spirit '  (2  Cor.  iii.  17).  There  is  exactly  the  same 
ambiguity  as  in  these  chapters  of  St.  John.  There  too 
the  Paraclete  is  at  one  moment  a  separate  '  hypostasis ' 
and  at  the  next  merged  in  the  person  of  Christ.  The 
conception  is  not  yet  capable  of  rigid  definition. 

When  we  think  how  much  of  this  conception  all 
the  New  Testament  writers  have  in  common  ;  how 
marked  is  the  interval  which  separates  them  from 
the  Old  Testament,  and  how  slight  on  the  other  hand 
is  that  which  separates  them  from  one  another  ;  how 
easy  is  the  transition  from  the  early  portions  of  the 
Acts  and  the  other  Apostolic  Epistles  to  St.  Paul 
and  St,  John, — it  seems  impossible  not  to  look  for  the 
common  basis  on  which  they  stand  to  the  actual 
teaching  of  our  Lord.  And  the  Synoptic  Gospels  give 
us  traces  of  that  teaching  sufficiently  distinct  to  war- 
rant us  in  asserting  its  existence,  and,  I  think  we  may 
add,  its  essential  identity  with  the  Apostolic  doctrine. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 

The  Para- 
clete. 


234 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


We  shall  enter  perhaps  more  completely  into  St. 
John's  delineation,  if  we  look  at  it  psychologically, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  his  own  mental  history  and 
experience.  Supposing,  what  I  think  we  have  a  right 
to  suppose  as  something  more  than  a  mere  hypothesis, 
that  St.  John  was  really  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  a 
great  deal  of  light  seems  to  be  thrown  on  these 
chapters.  The  functions  assigned  in  them  to  the 
Paraclete,  are  those  of  Comforter,  Champion,  In- 
structor. The  Paraclete  was  to  console  the  disciples 
for  the  loss  of  their  Master  ;  He  was  to  be  their 
stay  in  the  midst  of  persecution  ;  He  was  to  teach 
them  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remem- 
brance whatsoever  their  Master  had  said  unto  them. 
Now  what  had  been  the  experience  of  the  Apostle  .'' 
He,  like  the  rest  of  his  colleagues,  had  been  dismayed 
and  broken  down  by  his  Master's  death,  but  like 
them  he  was  suddenly  raised  to  new  hope  by  the 
Resurrection.  Then  came  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  (to 
which  there  was  certainly  some  objective  fact  to  cor- 
respond, whether  exactly  that  described  in  Acts  ii.  or 
not).  He,  like  the  rest,  felt  himself  carried  away  by 
a  strange  exaltation  and  enthusiasm,  which  is  still 
reflected  in  the  pages  of  the  Acts  (iv.  23-30,  v.  41, 
vi.  15,  &c.)  He  found  his  sorrow  actually  turned  into 
joy.  He  found  himself  actually  sustained  before 
mobs  and  councils  and  kings.  He  found,  both  at 
first  and  as  time  went  on,  that  the  full  significance 
of  his  Master's  mission,  the  nature  of  His  Messiah- 
ship,  the  value  of  His  sufferings,  became  much  clearer 
to  him.  One  by  one  the  sayings  of  his  Lord  came 
back  into  his  memory,  seeming  to  explain  both  past 
and  present,  and  also  to  give  a  key  to  the  future. 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


235 


All  this  he  would  connect  with  the  gift  and  promise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  all  this  would  help  him  to  fill 
in  or  to  retrace  the  outline  of  the  promise  itself.  The 
Apostle  ascribed  to  the  Paraclete  those  changes  which 
he  was  conscious  had  been  supernaturally  wrought 
in  himself.  The  functions  thus  indicated  may  have 
been,  and  probably  were,  foreshadowed  in  the  dis- 
course of  which  these  chapters  are  the  reproduction  ; 
but  the  autobiography  of  the  Apostle  lent  them  ad- 
ditional distinctness  and  individuality. 

(3)  The  allegory  of  the  vine  and  its  branches 
belongs  to  the  same  class  as  the  miracle  of  the  multi- 
plied loaves  and  fishes  with  its  explanation,  and  has 
probably  aa  equal  degree  of  authenticity  ;  though,  as 
we  have  said,  its  place  in  this  particular  context  may 
be  doubtful. 

(4)  In  like  manner  the  predictions  of  persecution, 
if  our  theory  has  any  claim  to  be  considered  a  true 
one,  not  only  nearly  resemble  the  parallel  discourse 
in  the  Synoptists,  but  were  originally  identical  with 
it,  and  have  come  to  be  incorporated  here  by  a  slight 
transposition  of  time  and  occasion.  In  any  case  they 
belong  to  the  last  week  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  The 
association  of  ideas  which  led  to  their  introduction 
appears  to  have  had  its  rise  in  the  conception  of  the 
Paraclete  as  Champion  or  Protector. 

The  prayer  which  follows  the  last  discourse  as  its 
fit  crown  and  conclusion  has  been  designated  by  an 
old  tradition  the  prayer  of  the  High  Priest,  now 
about  to  take  upon  Him  His  office,  and  to  offer 
Atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  It  falls  natu- 
rally into  three  divisions.     It  is  a  prayer,  (verses  1-5) 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


The  Vine. 


The  dis- 
ciples and 
the  world.; 


ch.  xvii. 
Oratio 
Summi 
Sacerdotis. 


236 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


[chap- 


for  the  Speaker  Himself,  (6-19)  for  the  disciples  then 
present,  (20-23)  for  those  who  should  be  joined  to  the 
Church  in  after  times  —  with  a  summary  (25,  26) 
gathering  up  with  deep  emotion  the  relations  of  the 
Saviour  to  His  own,  their  nature  and  their  end,  as 
embodying  a  revelation  of  God,  and  through  that 
revelation  realizing  the  Divine  Love. 

Here  again  we  feel  that  we  are  upon  ground  where 
criticism  might  well  be  silent.  But  our  object  is  to 
determine  how  far  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  truthful 
historical  record,  and  in  order  to  do  this  no  part  of  it 
must  be  exempt  from  investigation.  Criticism,  how- 
ever, has  in  this  instance  little  to  do.  We  have 
recognized  distinctly  the  fact  that  the  discourses 
contained  in  the  fourth  Gospel  have  received  a  colour- 
ing from  the  mind  and  style  of  the  Evangelist.  I 
cannot  but  think  that  an  impartial  reader,  coming  to 
the  study  of  the  Gospel  with  the  intention  to  form  his 
opinion  by  strict  induction  from  the  facts,  will  inevit- 
ably arrive  at  this  conclusion ;  and  it  will  not  be 
otherwise  than  confirmed  in  him  by  this  chapter. 
But  having  said  this  we  shall  not  attempt  to  go  fur- 
ther, and  separate  the  Johannean  form  from  the 
original  substance.  For  such  a  step  the  data  are  not 
sufficient.  We  shall  simply  leave  the  chapter  as  it 
stands,  with  that  caution  or  proviso. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  allowed  that  there 
is  anything  in  the  chapter  that  is  incompatible  with 
its  Apostolic  and  Johannean  authorship.  The  points 
that  have  chiefly  been  noticed  as  indicating  such  a 
conclusion  are  these  ^. 

I.  The  combination  ^\r\(rovv  Xpiarbv  as  if  it  were  a 
1  Cf.  Scholten,  Ev.  Job.  p.  296. 


XIV.] 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


537 


proper  name,  and  had  slipped  in  inadvertently  from 
the  later  use.  If  it  were  so,  this  would  not  prove  that 
the  words  were  not  written  by  an  Apostle.  But 
XpioToi;  is  rather  a  predicate  than  a  proper  name. 
Without  going  so  far  as  to  say,  with  Dr.  Alford  and 
Luthardt,  that  we  can  see  here  the  particular  source 
of  the  use  as  a  proper  name,  we  may  yet  fairly  say 
that  we  see  an  example  of  the  process  by  which  that 
use  arose.  The  epithet  is  emphatic.  Eternal  life 
consists  in  knowing  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  His 
Anointed  Son. 

2.  A  supposed  harshness  in  ver.  9,  '  I  pray  not  for 
the  world,'  which  is  thought  to  point  to  a  system  of 
Dualism.  But  the  words  merely  mean  that  the  world 
is  not  the  subject  of  this  particular  prayer.  And  there 
is  no  Dualism:  for  in  ver.  21  the  possibility  of  the 
world's  conversion  is  distinctly  contemplated,  as  else- 
where (cf.  xvi.  8-1 1,  and  especially  iii.  16,  17:  'For 
God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  His  only-be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God  sent 
not  His  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but 
that  the  world  through  Him  might  be  saved  'j.  The 
unbelief  and  opposition  of  the  world  is  not  invincible  ; 
and  that,  I  presume,  is  what  Dualism  would  mean. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  Pre-existencc  appears  more  than 
once  in  the  course  of  the  prayer  (verses  5,  22,  24).  But 
if  there  is  reason  on  other  grounds  to  believe  that  the 
Gospel  was  really  written  by  St.  John,  this  at  least 
does  not  afford  sufficient  for  thinking  otherwise.  The 
incomplete  and  comparatively  popular  character  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  enough  to  account  for  its 
omission  in  them. 


St.  John 
xiv.-xvii. 


238 


THE  LAST  DISCOURSES. 


4.  Lastly,  it  is  urged  that  the  triumphant  eleva- 
tion of  this  prayer  is  inconsistent  with  the  Synoptic 
account  of  the  agony  in  Gethsemane.  But  the 
liability  to  fluctuations  of  feeling  and  emotion  is 
inherent  in  humanity,  and  was  assumed  with  His 
manhood  by  Him  who  was  perfect  man.  If  we  had 
another  version  of  the  prayer  besides  St.  John's,  we 
should  probably  find  the  elements  of  depression 
somewhat  nearer  the  surface  ;  but  that  they  were 
subordinate,  though  breaking  out  from  time  to  time, 
is  seen  from  the  whole  both  of  the  Johannean 
and  Synoptic  narratives.  St.  John  himself,  we 
cannot  doubt,  underwent  a  reaction.  In  common 
with  all  the  disciples,  the  Crucifixion  was  to  him 
at  the  first  a  stumblingblock  and  a  shock  to  his 
faith.  But  the  Resurrection,  and  the  events  that  fol- 
lowed, with  the  rapid  success  of  the  Gospel  from 
that  moment  onwards,  carried  his  enthusiastic  nature 
to  the  opposite  extreme  of  joyful  exultation.  This 
was  the  permanent  impression  left  upon  him,  by 
which  the  earlier  and  transitory  one  was  obliterated. 
And  it  dominated  his  whole  conception  of  the  history, 
both  that  anterior  to  as  well  as  that  succeeding  the 
Crucifixion.  There  is  probably  in  the  prayer  before 
us  a  proleptic  element  which  is  derived  from  the 
consciousness  of  the  Apostle  ;  but  it  acquires  a  pe- 
culiar probability  and  appropriateness  when  we  refer 
it  to  that  consciousness,  and  look  at  it  in  the  light 
of  the  Apostle's  mental  history. 


CHAPTER    XV. 


THE   PASSOVER. 


St.  John 
xviii. 

Character 
of  the 
narrative. 


WE  return  once  more  from  discourse  to  narrative, 
which  preponderates  in  the  whole  of  the  re- 
maining portion  of  the  Gospel.  Accordingly,  as  we 
have  found  hitherto  that  in  the  narrative  portions  the 
marks  of  an  eye-witness  at  once  begin  to  multiply,  so 
here  especially  they  occur  in  such  large  amount  and 
in  such  rapid  succession  that  it  appears  impossible  to 
resist  the  conviction  that  from  an  eye-witness  and  no 
one  else  the  account  proceeds.  Not  the  least  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  this,  is  the  special  pleading  to 
which  the  opponents  of  the  Johannean  authorship  are 
driven  in  order  to  support  their  conclusion.  An  ex- 
ample is  to  be  seen  in  the  work  of  Dr.  Scholten, 
p.  296  foil,,  who  takes  up  argument  after  argu- 
ment in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  clear  that — 
though  perhaps  unconsciously — he  is  trying  to  make 
the  worse  appear  the  better  cause.  Critics  like 
M.  Renan,  with  less  bias  and  a  finer  historical  sense, 
freely  acknowledge  the  excellence  of  the  Johannean 
narrative.  | 

It  opens  with  a  piece  of  precise  topography  and   ^v-  '"3 
probable   history.      '  When  Jesus    had    spoken   these 


240 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


words,  He  went  forth  with  His  disciples  over  the 
brook  Cedron,  where  was  a  garden,  into  the  which 
He  entered  with  His  disciples.  And  Judas  also, 
which  betrayed  Him,  knew  the  place  :  for  Jesus  oft- 
times  resorted  thither  with  His  disciples.'  The  garden 
((cryTTo?)  exactly  corresponds  to  the  xis^piov  of  the  Sy- 
noptists,  of  which  it  is  a  further  definition.  An 
objection  has  been  drawn  from  the  reading  rOiv  Kibpoiv, 
which,  as  in  so  many  other  instances,  turns  out  upon 
examination  to  be  favourable  to  the  view  against 
which  it  is  directed.  Arguing  from  the  plural  article, 
which  has  the  authority  of  a  majority  of  the  Mss.,  it 
has  been  inferred  that  the  Evangelist  was  ignorant  of 
the  true  derivation  of  the  name  Cedron  or  Kidron, 
which  does  not  stand  for  '  cedars,'  but  is  a  Hebrew 
word  meaning  '  black '  or  '  dark.'  But  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus  reads  tov  Kibpov,  and  a  respectable  mi- 
nority of  Mss.  read  rod  KeSpwi-,  which  may  be  re- 
stored to  the  text  with  little  hesitation.  If  the 
original  reading  was  rod  Kebpcav,  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand how  each  of  the  two  corruptions  came  to  be 
substituted  for  it  by  copyists  knowing  only  Greek. 
But  on  the  other  hand  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  either 
TOV  Ke'Spou  could  be  corrupted  into  to^v  Kehpcov  or  vice 
versa,  or  how  either  of  them  could  sink  into  such  a 
monstrosity  to  a  Greek  eye  and  ear  as  tov  KeSpwr.  To 
suppose  that  this  last  was  a  correction  on  critical 
p'rounds   would    be  a   mistaken    modernism  ^.     Even 


^  So  Renan,  Meyer,  and  Lach- 
mann,  and  the  argument  is  certainly 
attractive.  It  ought  however  to  be 
noticed  that  a  majority  of  the  best 
professed  critics  (^Tischendorf,  Tre- 
gelles,  Westcott)  retain  raiv  KeSpwv ; 
and  the  niceties  of  text-criticism  are 


such,  that  a  positive  opinion  ought 
not  to  be  expressed  except  by  those 
who  are  thoroughly  conversant 
with  them.  The  genuineness  of 
the  Gospel,  however,  is  not  affected, 
whichever  way  the  decision  may 
go- 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


241 


upon  the  supposition  that  roS  Ke'Spoi*  or  rwy  KcSpcoi/was 
the  right  reading,  it  would  still  be  credible  that  a 
person  who  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  Hebrew, 
might  yet  be  struck  by  the  similarity  in  form  (he 
might  think  also  in  meaning)  of  the  Greek  word,  and 
so  be  led  to  use  it  as  a  translation.  I  suspect  that 
the  history  of  geographical  nomenclature  would  fur- 
nish analogies  to  such  a  case. 

Our  English  version  gives  little  idea  of  the  exact- 
ness of  the  description  in  the  verse  which  follows. 
'  0  ovv  lovbai  XafSoiV  ttjv  anelpav  /cat  e/c  Toiv  ap'x^tepicav  Koi 
[ex]  T(t)V  <I>aptcraicoy  VTr-qpiras  ^p\(.Tai  eKcl  juera  (pavuiv 
Kol  XapLTTaboiv  koI  oTrXcoy.'  crTreipa  is  a  Roman  cohort, 
7]  (TTsupa  that  which  garrisoned  the  citadel  of  Antonia. 
It  is  probable  that  part  only  was  present ;  but  it  is 
called  1]  (T-dpa  from  its  being  under  the  command  of 
the  chief  officer  or  Chiliarch  of  the  cohort,  who  is 
mentioned  in  ver.  12.  The  v-nr^peTat  are  the  servants  or 
apparitors  of  the  Sanhedrim.  Dr.  Scholten  raises  an- 
other objection,  which  only  recoils  upon  his  own  theory, 
founded  on  the  introduction  of  the  Roman  soldiers. 
He  thinks  they  were  unnecessary  and  that  their  pre- 
sence is  improbable.  But  it  is  obviously  accounted 
for  by  the  fear  of  the  chief  priests  that  the  arrest  of 
Jesus  would  'cause  an  uproar  among  the  people.' 
At  a  time  when  3,000,000  people  were  assembled  in 
and  round  a  city  which  usually  held  about  50,000,  it 
must  have  been  easy  to  collect  a  crowd  anywhere  ; 
and  Josephus  testifies  to  the  excitable  condition  of  mind 
and  frequent  disturbances  and  bloodshed  among  the 
pilgrims  attending  the  passover.  A  little  spark  might 
easily  set  so  much  inflammable  material  into  a  blaze, 
especially  if  it  arose  from  the  Messianic  expectations. 

R 


St.  John 
xviii. 


242 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xviii. 


vv.  4-9. 


Thus  we  read  that  3000  men  were  slain  in  a  sedition 
at  the  time  of  the  passover  on  the  accession  of 
Archelaus  in  B.C.  4.  A  little  later  there  is  an  out- 
break against  Sabinus  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  in 
putting  down  which  Varus  crucified  3000  men.  Under 
the  oppressions  of  Pilate  the  Jews  were  constantly 
upon  the  verge  of  insurrection,  and  the  great  centres 
of  sedition  were  the  religious  feasts  ^.  The  presence 
of  the  Chiliarch  and  his  soldiers  was  therefore  a 
natural  and  necessary  precaution.  This  particular 
instance  might  serve  as  a  warning  of  the  futility  of 
a  priori  arguments  from  probability,  as  against  posi- 
tive testimony — especially  when  such  arguments  are 
grounded  upon  merely  general  considerations,  without 
regard  to  the  special  historical  conditions  involved ^ 

We  may  see  a  further  confirmation  of  St.  John's 
statement  that  the  band  was  mainly  composed  of 
Roman  soldiers  in  the  account  of  the  Synoptists,  from 
which  it  would  appear  that  the  person  of  Jesus  was 
unknown  to  them.  The  Synoptists  also  indicate  that 
the  band  was  a  large  one  by  their  use  of  the  word 
6)(ko<i  {p)(Ko'i  tioh^'i,  Matt.). 

The  Judas  kiss, — if  it  took  place,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  that  it  did, — must  come  in  at  verse  4  between 
k^^KQUv  and  ei-n-er.  After  it  had  been  given  the  traitor 
would  retire  back  into  the  crowd,  or  to  one  side  of  it, 
where  the  Evangelist  sees  him  standing  (ver.  5). 

The  description  in  ver.  6  is  probably  that  of  a  natural 
shrinking  from  a  presence  at  once  so  majestic  and  so 


'  Cf.  Joseph.     Ant.     xvii.  9.  3,  Sir   Richard  Hanson's  arguments, 

10.  2  ;   xviii.  3.  i,  1.  though   stated  with  much  ability, 

^  A   great    number — I   had   al-  have  no  higher  value, 
most  said  the  greater  number, — of 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


243 


gentle.  To  the  excited  imagination  of  the  Apostle  it 
might  well  appear  as  a  miracle :  and  this  impression 
may  have  unconsciously  heightened  his  recollection 
of  the  circumstance.  To  suppose  a  real  miracle  is 
both  unnecessary  and  derogator>^  to  the  true  dignity 
of  our  Lord. 

In  regard  to  the  episode  which  follows,  we  notice 
that  St,  John  knows  the  name  both  of  the  disciple 
who  struck  the  blow,  and  of  the  high  priest's  servant 
who  was  wounded.  He  has  also,  in  common  with  St. 
Luke,  the  remarkable  touch  that  it  was  the  rigJit  ear 
that  was  cut  off.  This  agreement  might  have  seemed 
suspicious,  but  for  two  considerations:  (i)  that  St. 
Luke  has  evidently  had  special  documents  or  a 
special  tradition  all  through  this  scene  ;  (2)  that  this 
minute  and  unimportant  point  is  the  only  one  on 
which  St.  John  does  agree  with  him,  while  he  differs, 
or  at  least  does  not  agree,  upon  a  number  of  others, 
e.g.  Luke  xxii.  47,  48,  49,  51  ;  Luke  xxii.  53,  'I  was 
daily  with  you  in  the  temple,'  St.  John  assigns 
to  a  different  occasion  (John  xviii.  20).  It  therefore 
appears  that  the  coincidence  is  independent  and  '  un- 
designed.' 

The  rebuke  in  ver.  1 1  stands  in  competition  with  that 
in  Matt.  xxvi.  52-54  ;  and  both  seem  to  have  equal 
claims  to  be  considered  original.  Probably  the  second 
clause  given  by  St.  John  ('  the  cup  which  My  Father 
hath  given  Me,  shall  I  not  drink  it .-"),  should  take 
the  place  of  the  verse  Matt.  xxvi.  54  ('  how  then  shall 
the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled  .""). 

We  now  come  to  a  series  of  well-known  difficulties 
and  complications,  which,  however,  it  is  clear,  have 
their  ground   rather  in  our  own  want  of  knowledge 

R  2 


St.  John 
xviii. 


vv.  12-27. 
Difficulties. 


244 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xviii. 


than  in  any  vagueness  or  indecision  on  the  part  of 
the  Evangelist.  We  have  sufficient  guarantee  for  this 
in  the  character  of  the  narrative  itself. 

The  questions  raised  are  these.  Before  whom  was 
the  interview  described  in  verses  19-23  held  .-'  If  before 
Caiaphas,  how  are  we  to  account  for  ver.  24  .''  If  before 
Annas,  why  is  he  called  the  high  priest .-'  In  what 
house  or  apartment  was  the  interview  held  ?  If  two 
separate  interviews  before  Annas  and  before  Caiaphas 
are  described,  how  is  it  that  the  scene  is  not  changed 
but  is  throughout  laid  in  the  house  of  the  high  priest  .-* 
Lastly,  how  is  the  Johannean  account  of  Peter's  de- 
nials to  be  harmonized  with  that  of  the  several  Sy- 
noptists .'' 

I  will  once  more  simply  state  my  own  conclusions, 
and  leave  them  to  an  impartial  consideration.  They  are 
these. 

(i)  The  correct  reading  in  ver.  24  is  probably 
aTrdcTTeiXiv  without  any  connecting  particle.  There 
appears  to  be  a  nearly  even  balance  of  authorities  for 
ovv  and  against  it^ ;  but  the  scale  is  decisively  turned 
by  the  fact  that  some  Mss.  and  versions  read  koI  and 
others  be,  so  that  these,  together  with  ovv,  must  be 
taken  to  represent  various  attempts  to  supply  what 
seemed  to  be  an  omission. 

(2)  aireaTeiXev  is  strictly  aoristic,  but  practically  it 
comes  to  have  the  force  of  a  pluperfect.     The  verse  is 


1  The  evidence  stands  thus : 
BC  (first  hand)  LXA,  i,  33  (im- 
portant cursives),  copies  of  the  old 
Latin  designated  by  Tregelles,  a 
b  f  ff,  the  Harcleian  Syriac  and 
the  Armenian  read  ovv.  Sin.,  the 
important  cursive,  69,  the  Peshito 
Syriac  and  the  Thebaic  read  Se. 
AC  (third  hand)  D  (second  hand) 


Y,  the  rest  of  the  MSS.  and  ver- 
sions including  the  Memphitic,  omit 
the  connecting  participle  alto- 
gether. The  Vulgate,  old  Latin 
c  and  g,  and  Aethiopic  have  '  et 
misit;'  the  Gothic  'tunc  misit.' 
Westcott,  Lachmann  and  Tischen- 
dorf  retain  ovv,  Tregelles  brackets, 
Griesbach  and  Meyer  omit. 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


245 


in  fact  an  explanatory  parenthesis  put  in  too  late  at 
the  point  where  the  Evangelist  happened  to  bethink 
himself  of  it.  It  merely  states  that  Annas  sent  Jesus 
bound  to  Caiaphas  without  saying  '  when.'  The  time 
was  really  before  the  preceding  interview,  about  the 
middle  of  ver.  15  (o-wetaTjA^f).  In  a  classical  composi- 
tion such  an  explanation  would  of  course  be  inad- 
missible, but  the  general  naivete  ('  Schlichtheit  und 
Unbeholfenheit,'  Keim)  with  which  the  Gospel  is 
written,  seems  to  leave  room  for  it.  We  may  suppose 
that  the  pluperfect  was  avoided  on  account  of  its 
awkward  and  irregular  form. 

(3)  The  interview  in  verses  19-23  was  therefore  held 
before  Caiaphas,  who  is  strictly  and  rightly  designated 
throughout  apxi-^p^w.  With  the  express  language  of 
verses  13  and  24  before  me  I  cannot  conceive  that  in  the 
intermediate  verses  the  title  could  be  given  to  another 
person,  even  though  it  might  legitimately  be  applied 
to  Annas  as  president  of  the  Sanhedrim.  The  alter- 
natives being  either  to  force  ap^iepevs  or  to  force 
aireaT€L\€v,  I  feel  bound,  contrary  to  the  usual  custom, 
to  accept  the  latter  as  the  less  violent  of  the  two  ^ 

(4)  The  house  in  which  Peter's  denial  takes  place  is 
also  that  of  Caiaphas.  Annas  either  lived  near,  or 
else  he  may  have  held  his  preliminary  examination  in 
one  of  the  rooms  of  the  high  priest's  official  residence, 
and    the   formal   hearing   may  have    taken    place  in 


*  The  view  here  expressed  is,  of 
course,  no  new  one,  but  is  merely 
a  return  to  what  maybe  called  the 
popular  theory  as  against  that 
which  is  held  by  the  more  accurate 
scholars.  This  is  just  one  of  those 
places  where  scholarship  (i.  e.  that 
which     is    formed     upon     classic 


models)  seems  to  be  allowed  more 
than  its  due  weight.  That  the 
'  high  priest'  of  verses  19,  22,  and  of 
13,  15,  16,  24,  &c ,  arc  different 
persons,  is  to  me  incredible;  that 
dTT((TTfi\fv  should  have  practically 
a  pluperfect  force,  at  most  im- 
probable. 


St.  John 
xviii. 


246 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xviii. 


ch.  xviii. 
28-xix.  12. 


another.  This  assumption  however  is  not  necessary 
on  the  theory  that  we  are  adopting. 

(5)  St.  Peter's  three  denials  took  place  exactly  as 
St.  John  describes  them.  The  first  question  is  put  by 
the  portress  ;  the  second  by  several  persons  in  the 
group  round  the  fire  at  once  ;  the  third  by  Malchus' 
kinsman.  Nothing  could  be  mqre  sure  and  precise 
than  the  way  in  which  these  persons  are  singled  out. 
No  forger  would  have  hit  upon  '  his  kinsman  whose 
ear  Peter  cut  ofif.'  St.  John  was  standing  by  in 
obscurity,  or  sheltered  perhaps  by  his  acquaintance 
with  the  high  priest,  and  saw  all  that  passed.  It  is 
possible  that,  as  M.  Renan  suggests,  this  acquaintance 
with  the  high  priest  merely  means  acquaintance  with 
some  of  the  upper  servants  :  though  from  Mark  i.  30 
(the  'hired  servants')  it  would  seem  that  the  family  of 
Zebedee  was  not  a  poor  one,  and  manual  labour  such 
as  that  described  in  Mark  i.  19  had  a  different  signi- 
ficance with  the  Jews  and  in  other  parts  of  the  ancient 
world. 

The  narrative  continues  with  the  same  admirable 
distinctness.  '  Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas 
unto  the  hall  of  judgment  (praetot'mm)  ;  and  they 
themselves  went  not  into  the  praetorium  (as  the 
residence  of  a  heathen),  lest  they  should  be  defiled  ; 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  passover.  Pilate  then 
went  out  unto  them,  and  said,  '  What  accusation  bring 
ye  against  this  man .-"  Pilate  comes  out  in  front  of 
the:  praetoi'-ium,  while  Jesus  is  led  within. 

The  explanation  in  ver.  31  ('  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 
put  any  man  to  death,')  is  confirmed,  according  to 
Dr.  Caspari,  by  a  passage  in  the  Talmud,  in  which  it 
is  stated  that  the  power  of  inflicting  capital  punish- 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


247 


ment  was  taken  from  the  Jews  forty  years  (in  round 
numbers)  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ^ 

The  accusation  that  the  Jews  bring  against  Jesus  is 
exactly  what  from  the  historical  situation  we  should 
expect  it  to  be.  'They  laid  information  against  Him 
before  the  Roman  government  as  a  dangerous  cha- 
racter ;  their  real  complaint  against  Him  was  precisely 
this,  that  He  was  not  dangerous.  Pilate  executed 
Him  on  the  ground  that  His  kingdom  was  of  this 
world ;  the  Jews  procured  His  execution  precisely 
because  it  was  not^.'  In  no  other  Gospel  do  the 
motives  and  characters  of  the  different  actors  in  the 
scene  stand  out  in  such  sharp  relief.  On  the  one  hand 
is  Pilate,  guided  throughout  by  a  certain  Roman 
sense  of  justice,  shrinking  from  no  extremity  of  punish- 
ment, but  not  wishing  to  inflict  it  without  some  clear 
cause  ;  evidently  suspicious  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy  ; 
despising  their  religious  disputes,  but  at  the  same 
time  not  without  fear  of  their  turbulent  spirit,  and 
anxious  not  to  give  them  a  ground  for  accusing  him 
before  the  Emperor ;  throwing  out  his  far-reaching 
question  '  What  is  truth .'"  not  indeed  in  a  spirit  of 
'jesting,'  nor  yet  in  that  of  earnest  enquiry,  but  in  the 
way  in  which  stern  practical  men  with  much  experience 
of  the  world  do  sometimes  throw  out  a  question  that 
goes  to  the  root  of  speculative  difficulties.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Pharisees,  studiously  keeping  up  the 
part  of  loyal  subjects  of  the  empire  ;  at  first  seeking 
to  escape  the  necessity  of  bringing  any  definite  charge 
at  all,  then  insisting  upon  the  particular  charge  of 
treason,  and  finally  compelled  to  fall  back  upon  their 


'  Cf.  Lehen  Jesu,  p.  157. 


'  Ecce  Homo,  pp.  28,  29. 


St.  John 
xviii. 

The  histo- 
rical posi- 
tion. 


248 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


own  religious  law,  though  still  holding  the  threat  of 
a  complaint  of  disloyalty  in  terrorem  over  Pilate's 
head  ;  satisfying  their  consciences  by  the  allegation  of 
blasphemy,  and  urging  this  no  doubt  to  some  extent 
sincerely,  but  yet  revealing  their  deeper  motives  by 
clamouring  for  the  release  of  Barabbas,  a  robber,  or 
bandit,  but  also — as  we  learn  from  the  Synoptists, 
and  as  was  frequently  the  case  at  that  time — a  leader 
in  one  of  the  patriotic  risings.  Such  a  meeting  of 
parties  in  the  Roman  and  in  the  Jews  ;  and  then 
above  them  all  the  object  of  their  contention — 'My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  if  My  kingdom  were 
of  this  world,  then  would  My  servants  fight  that  I 
should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews  ;  but  now  is  My 
kingdom  not  from  hence ^ ! ' 

We  ought  to  be  just  to  the  Jews  as  well  as  to 
Pilate.  '  They  knew  not  what  they  did.'  Their  crime 
was  the  necessary  outcome  of  the  last  four  or  five  cen- 
turies of  the  national  life.  A  series  of  intellectual 
mistakes  had  deepened  into  moral  perversion.  Brought 
up  as  they  were  in  the  school  of  Rabbinical  tradition, 
with  Pharisaism  as  their  highest  ideal  of  thought  and 
action,  they  were  almost  constrained  to  act  as  they 
did.  It  was  not  the  first  time  or  the  last  that  inno- 
cence and  goodness  have  suffered  through  mistaken 
religious  and  patriotic  zeal.  It  was  terribly  mistaken. 
There  may  have  been  not  a  little  pure  malignity 
mixed  up  in  it ;  but  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  to  a 


1  Sir  Richard  Hanson's  recon- 
struction of  this  part  of  the  history 
I  can  only  call  an  arbitrarj'  caprice. 
Why  destroy  a  picture  that  is  per- 
fectly consistent  and  intelligible, 
rich   in   detail,  and  in   the  tinest 


shades  of  characterisation,  in  order 

to  substitute  for  it  another  that  is 
taken  entirely  out  of  the  air,  that 
might  be  true  or  that  might  be 
false,  but  rests  upon  no  evidence  of 
any  kind — in  fact,  a  mere  romance. 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


249 


great  extent  sincere.  The  crime  of  the  Jews  was  the 
same  in  kind  (if  greater  in  degree)  as  that  of  Marcus 
Aurehus,  Innocent  III.  and  the  Dominicans,  Loyola 
and  the  Inquisition,  Calvin  and  Cranmer  and  the  Re- 
formers, and  indeed  of  all  persecutors  for  religion. 
So  much  indulgence  as  we  accord  on  principle  to  one 
we  must  accord  to  all. 

However,  this  is  not  the  place  to  go  further  into  this 
subject.  For  our  present  purpose  it  is  enough  to 
notice  that  the  Johannean  narrative  is  in  itself  essen- 
tially consistent  and  credible,  and  agrees  with  all  that 
we  know  both  of  the  Jews  and  the  Romans  and  of  the 
origin  and  nature  of  Christianity. 

The  examination  before  Herod,  which  is  almost 
certainly  historical ',  it  seems  should  be  inserted  in 
the  course  of  xviii.  38.  The  Evangelist  has  appar- 
ently forgotten  or  overlooked  it.  This  is  one  of 
those  passages  which  show  that  he  did  not  write  with 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  St.  Luke's  in  particular,  to 
which  we  have  noticed  several  points  of  affinity,  actu- 
ally lying  open  before  him  ;  but  that  in  the  cases 
where  they  agree  in  minute  detail,  his  memory  has 
probably  been  freshened  by  perusing  them  at  some 
greater  or  less  distance  of  time. 

The  specification  of  the  place  w^here  Pilate  gave 
judgment  as  the  (tesselated)  'Pavement,'  called  in  the 
Hebrew  (from  its  being  upon  the  rising  ground) 
'  Gabbatha,'   (and   therefore,   we   may   add,  from   its 


St.  John 
xviii. 


'  St.  Luke  has  evidently  had  ac- 
cess to  special  information  with  re- 
gard to  Herod's  court,  probably 
through  the  circle  to  which  be- 
longed Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza ; 


cf.  Luke  ^•iii.  3,  xxiii.  7-12,  xxiv. 
10.  From  the  same  source  I 
should  be  tempted  to  derive  parts 
of  yW..  I -10,  and  the  narrative  of 
the  Walk  to  Emmaus. 


The  exam- 
ination be- 
fore Herod. 


ch.    xix. 
13-15- 


25© 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xix. 


The  time  of 
the  Cruci- 
fixion. 


having  a  Hebrew  name,  a  fixed  spot,  and  not  the 
portable  mosaic  work  which  the  Roman  generals 
sometimes  carried  about  with  them,)  has  been  urged 
in  favour  of  the  view  that  Pilate's  residence  was  not  in 
Herod's  palace,  but  in  the  tower  of  Antonia  ;  because 
Josephus  tells  us  that  the  whole  of  the  temple  hill, 
on  part  of  which  the  tower  of  Antonia  stood,  was 
covered  with  this  tesselated  pavement.  There  seems, 
however,  to  be  direct  evidence  for  the  statement 
that  the  procurators  of  Judaea  occupied  the  palace  of 
Herod  when  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  would  hardly  be 
likely  that,  supposing  the  whole  of  the  hill  to  be 
covered  with  mosaic,  a  particular  portion  of  it  should 
be  singled  out  to  bear  the  name.  The  space  in  front 
of  Herod's  palace  may  have  been  laid  down  with 
mosaic ;  or  it  is  possible,  as  Dr.  Wieseler  supposes, 
that  there  may  have  been  a  permanent  and  not  port- 
able '  j'z/^^j/z^w '(=' Gabbatha ')  so  decorated^.  In 
any  case  we  cannot  but  notice  the  accuracy  of  St. 
John's  description,  and  the  improbability  that  it 
should  have  been  the  work  of  a  forger. 

There  is  a  considerable  difficulty  in  regard  to  the 
note  of  time  in  ver,  14.  If  we  are  to  follow  the  Jewish 
mode  of  reckoning,  this  will  be  clearly  opposed  to 
Mark  xv.  25,  and  also,  it  is  generally  assumed,  to  Matt. 
xxvii.  45,  Luke  xxiii.  44.  St.  John  places  the  final 
delivery  of  Pilate's  verdict  at  the  sixth  hour,  i.  e. 
12  o'clock  in  the  day;  St.  Mark  places  the  Crucifixion 
at  9  a.m.,  and  the  darkness  is  mad^  by  all  the  three 
Synoptists  to  last  from  I2  to  3  p.m.  Dr.  Caspari  is 
perhaps  right  in  calling  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the 

1  Cf.  "Wieseler,  Beit.  p.  249,  n.     Ellicott,  p.  346,  n.  i. 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


2j;l 


darkness  ceases  precisely  at  the  ninth  hour  (3  p.m.), 
at  the  moment  of  our  Lord's  death.  It  might  be  in- 
ferred from  this,  that  it  was  meant  to  be  coterminous 
with  the  Crucifixion.  The  narrative  of  St.  John 
might  so  be  said  to  be  confirmed  roughly  by  the 
Synoptists,  though  the  discrepancy  with  St.  Mark 
would  still  remain,  and  the  language  of  St.  John  him- 
self would  have  to  be  somewhat  strained '.  If  this  is 
not  satisfactory  we  may  have  recourse  to  the  supposi- 
tion that  St.  John  has  adopted  the  Roman  mode  of 
reckoning  from  midnight.  Yet  even  this,  if  it  removes 
some  diflSculties,  raises  others ;  for  the  interval  be- 
tween the  time  indicated  by  ispuk  and  6  a.m.  is  hardly 
sufficient  to  allow  for  all  the  events  recorded  in  John 
xviii.  28 — xix.  14  together  with  the  examination  be- 
fore Herod,  Luke  xxiii.  6-12.  In  spite  of  these 
multifarious  difficulties,  I  should  hesitate  much  to 
suggest  that  either  of  the  two  notes  of  time  was  un- 
historical.  This  is  not  the  way  in  which  writers  of 
fiction  are  wont  to  embellish  their  narratives  ;  least  of 
all  writers  of  fiction  in  those  times.  The  most  honest 
and  authentic  testimony  will  admit  of  considerable 
discrepancies  ;  and  by  allowing  a  certain  latitude  to 
the  expressions  used,  those  before  us  would  appear  to 
be  not  insuperable.  If  a  choice  is  to  be  made,  I 
should  incline  to  the  hypothesis  that  Roman  time  has 
been  followed,  the  more  so  as  it  seems  to  give  greater 
continuity  to  the  sequence  of  the  events  generally ; 
but  at  best  the  question  cannot  be  left  otherwise  than 
open. 

'  Dr.  Caspari  adopts  the — I  must     from  rp'nri  to  tinr]  {Leben  Jesii,  pp. 
think — quite  unjustifiable  measure     193-5). 
of  altering  the  reading  in  St.  Mark 


St.  John 
xix. 


252 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xix. 


i6- 


24. 


vv.  25-27. 


j  The  distance  of  the  hill  Golgotha  from  the  city^, 
the  title  upon  the  cross,  the  remonstrance  of  the  Jews, 

j  with  Pilate's  grim  reply,  the  behaviour  of  the  four 
soldiers  on  guard,  are  all  told  with  greater  exactness 
by  St.  John  than  by  the  Synoptists.  Doubt  may 
seem  to  be  thrown  upon  the  act  attributed  to  the 
soldiers  on  account  of  the  Messianic  prophecy,  of 
which  the  Evangelist  sees  in  it  the  fulfilment.  But 
the  Synoptists  notice  the  same  circumstance,  though 
its  correspondence  with  the  words  of  the  Psalm  has 
escaped  them.  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  the 
incident  of  the  tunic  being  without  seam  had  a  foun- 
dation in  fact.  It  would  be  far-fetched  as  an  invention, 
and  would  not  be  necessary  to  account  for  the  lot- 
drawing,  which  the  Synoptists  mention  without  it. 
Besides,  if  it  is  a  fiction,  how  did  the  writer  know  that 
the  garments  were  divided  exactly  into  four?  So 
casual  an  indication  of  the  number  of  the  soldiers 
must  be  taken  as  a  strong  mark  of  authenticity. 

In  regard  to  the  women  at  the  foot  of  the  cross 
there  is  a  discrepancy  between  St.  John  and  the 
Synoptists  similar  to,  but  not  so  insoluble  as,  that  in 
regard  to  the  time  of  the  Crucifixion.  The  picture  is 
taken  at  different  moments,  that  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  somewhat  later  than  that  in  St.  John.  The 
Apostle    and    those    with    him    have    withdrawn — 


^  The  bold  and  striking  view 
propounded  by  Mr.  Fergusson  (art. 
'  Jerusalem  '  in  5.  Z).)  according  to 
which  the  site  of  Golgotha  and  the 
original  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre is  that  now  occupied  by  the 
Mosque  of  Omar,  appears  to  be 
gaining  ground.  It  has  lately 
foimd  an  adherent  in  Dr.  Caspari, 


who  seems  to  have  arrived  indepen- 
dently at  the  same  result  (cf.  Lehen 
Jesu,  Appendix  on  Topography  of 
Jerusalem,  pp.  219-263).  It  would 
be  a  slight  argument  against  this 
view,  if,  as  above,  the  praetorium  is 
to  be  taken  as  Herod's  Palace,  and 
not  the  Tower  of  Antonia. 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


253 


perhaps  been  driven  away  by  the  soldiers  or  the  Jews. 
It  may  be  that  they  have  rejoined  a  larger  knot  of 
disciples  collected  in  the  distance.  Statements  of 
this  sort  may  legitimately  be  harmonised,  where  (i) 
they  are  equally  precise  in  both  documents,  and  (2) 
the  process  of  harmonising  them  involves  nothing 
far-fetched  or  unnatural.  At  the  same  time  it  would 
be  wrong  to  press  any  particular  theory  as  to  the  way 
in  which  they  are  to  be  harmonised,  unless  it  is 
peculiarly  self-evident  and  convincing.  The  most  that 
can  be  done  is  to  point  out  Jiozv  a  harmony  may  be 
possible.  The  combinations  of  events  are  so  various 
that  the  actual  harmony  may  have  been  different  from 
any  that  we  may  imagine. 

I  have  little  doubt  that  there  were  four  women  at 
the  foot  of  the  cross.  Bp.  Ellicott,  who  thinks  there 
were  only  three,  does  not  notice  the  obvious  improb- 
ability that  two  sisters  should  bear  the  same  name. 
And  the  two  arguments  that  he  himself  uses  are  far 
from  equally  cogent.  '  The  sister  of  Mary '  would  be 
sufficiently  explicit  to  the  Apostle  and  his  contem- 
poraries ;  and  it  is  quite  a  plausible  conjecture  that 
this  sister  was  Salome,  the  Apostle's  own  mother — in 
which  case  it  would  accord  with  his  practice  to 
introduce  her  indirectly.  As  to  the  use  of  kcu.  I 
cannot  help  asking  how  wide  an  induction  Dr.  Ellicott 
has  to  go  upon  1  Such  nice  literary  arguments  are 
very  precarious.  But  the  identification  of  the  wife  of 
Alphaeus  with  the  sister  of  the  Virgin  stands  or  falls 
with  the  Hieronymian  theory  as  to  the  '  brethren  of 
the  Lord  ; '  and  that  I  must  regard  as  untenable  ^ 

^  Cf.  Huh.  Led.  p.  354,  n.  Compare  LighUoot,  Exnrsus  on  Gala- 
t/ans,  pp.  247-282  ;  Meyer,  ad  he;   &c. 


St.  John 
xix. 


254 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xix. 


vv.  20-37. 


The  Tubingen  theory  as  appHed  to  this  scene 
receives  its  logical  completion,  and  critical  ingenuity 
its  climax,  in  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Scholten,  that  the 
mother  of  Jesus  here  stands  for  '  the  Church,'  which  is 
significantly  committed  to  the  charge  of  the  beloved 
disciple  instead  of  to  St.  Peter  ^ !  If  the  circumstances 
are  not  too  solemn  to  admit  the  question  we  should 
be  tempted  to  ask,  in  what  relation  to  '  the  Church ' 
the  other  personages  are  to  be  conceived  as  standing, 
the  sister  of  Mary,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  and 
Mary  Magdalen .'' 

But  we  must  draw  aside  for  a  moment  from  these 
debates  and  questionings,  and  be  mindful  of  the 
presence  into  which  we  have  been  brought. 

On  that  terrible  canvas  with  which  Tintoret  has 
covered  the  end  of  the  last  room  in  the  school  of 
San  Rocco,  the  Magdalen  is  seen  lying  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross.     She  lies  motionless,  as  if  in  a  swoon. 

In  the  Piet^  or  Deposition  of  Perugino  the  very 
air  seems  hushed  and  still  with  holy  sorrow — but  it  is 
sorrow  that  does  not  show  itself  by  tears.  A  tremor 
of  the  lip  or  a  silent  compression  of  the  hand  are  the 
only  signs  by  which  it  is  revealed. 

And  we  too,  if  we  are  true  Christians,  shall  follow 
these  examples.  We  shall  stand  with  bowed  head,  and 
turn  away  with  reverent  step.  But  our  words,  if  there 
are  any,  will  be  wary  and  few. 


If  in  the  history  of  the  last  moments  of  the  Passion 

'  Cf.  Scholten,  p.  383. 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


255 


and  in  those  which  follow  we  observe  the  peculiar  care 
with  which  the  Evangelist  points  out  and  insists  upon 
the  fulfilment  of  Scripture,  this  ought  not  really  to 
prejudice  us  against  his  narrative.  In  vcr.  28,  'iva 
reAetco^j)  ?/  ypacpi]  goes  with  the  words  that  precede,  and 
not  with  those  which  follow.  And  with  regard  to  verses 
S6,  37  it  should  be  noticed  (i)  that  the  criirifragiiitn 
was  a  Roman  custom  though  not  necessarily  connected 
with  crucifixion  ^ ;  (2)  that  in  this  case  both  the 
crurifragium  and  the  lance-thrust  are  naturally 
accounted  for ;  (3)  that  no  prophecy  or  precedent  is 
quoted  for  the  remarkable  phenomenon  described  in 
ver.  34  ;  (4)  that  none  of  the  Synoptists  allude  to  these 
prophecies,  from  which  it  would  appear  that  they  had 
not  been  generally  noticed,  and  that  it  was  not  very 
obvious  to  apply  them  literally.  It  is  therefore,  we 
conclude,  not  only  equally  probable  and  natural  but 
more  so,  that  the  facts  should  have  suggested  an 
application  of  the  prophecies  than  that  the  prophecies 
should  have  suggested  an  invention  of  the  facts. 

The  issue  of  blood  and  water  seems  to  be  capable 
of  a  natural  explanation,  as  caused  by  a  rupture  of 
the  vessels  about  the  heart  ^.  As  a  pure  allegory  it 
would  be  ver}'  far-fetched  and  extraordinary.  Here 
again  it  is  the  more  credible  hypothesis  that  the 
facts  came  first  in  order  of  time,  and  that  the  sym- 
bolism is  an  after-thought  engrafted  upon  them. 


'  Cf.  Plautus,  Poen.  iv.  2,  64 ;  S.B. 
art.  'Crucifixion,'  and  Meyer,  adloc. 

'  Cf.  Ellicott.  p.  3O1,  n.  2  ; 
Meyer,  pp.  6.^5,6;  Ewald,  p.  414, 
n.  When  we  think  of  the  intensity 
with  which  every  detail  of  the  Pas- 
sion  must    have    imprinted   itself 


upon  the  Apostle's  mind,  we  shall 
not  be  surprised  if  he  should  in  some 
respects  have  magnified  slight  and 
accidental  phenomena,  especially 
where  they  seemed  to  fall  in  with 
his  own  peculiar  symbolism. 


St.  John 
xix. 


256 


THE  PASSOVER. 


[chap. 


St.  John 
xix. 


vv.  38-42. 


For  the  rest  we  cannot  but  notice  the  strong  as- 
severation of  the  Evangelist  that  he  had  himself  seen 
that  which  he  records,  and  that  his  record  is  true. 
It  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  this  asseveration  was 
made  in  bad  faith.  When  the  details  and  sequence 
of  events  in  the  description  are  examined  closely  they 
will  be  found  to  be  quite  consistent  with  autoptic 
testimony.  The  mark  of  time  in  ver.  3 1  especially  con- 
firms this.  At  sunset  the  Sabbath  would  begin  :  and 
that  Sabbath  was  one  of  peculiar  sanctity.  In  ad- 
dition to  that  which  it  possessed  simply  as  a  Sabbath 
it  was  also  the  first  great  day  of  the  Passover,  the 
night  in  which  the  Paschal  lamb  was  to  be  eaten. 
The  day  on  which  the  Crucifixion  had  taken  place 
was  itself  the  preparation  for  it,  on  which,  if  possible, 
work  was  suspended.  The  Jews  therefore  hastened 
to  have  the  bodies  taken  down  from  the  cross,  and  for 
the  same  reason  that  of  our  Lord  was  interred  in  the 
nearest  appropriate  spot,  a  garden  situated  on  the  hill 
where  the  crosses  stood.  All  this  is  told  with  the 
greatest  precision.  And  we  have  seen  reason  to  think 
that  the  whole  chronology  of  which  it  forms  a  part 
is  accurate.  It  is  difficult  in  the  extreme  to  believe 
either  that  it  was  put  together  by  any  one  but  a  Jew, 
or  that  even  a  Jew  would  have  kept  it  so  constantly 
and  vividly  in  mind  if  he  had  not  been  himself 
actually  present. 

The  circumstantiality  of  the  narrative  seems  to  in- 
crease as  it  proceeds.  The  Jews  apply  to  Pilate  and 
receive  the  necessary  order  for  the  bodies  to  be 
taken  down.  This  however  could  not  be  done  till  life 
was  extinct.  And  while  the  soldiers  are  waiting  for 
the  criirifragmm  to  take  effect,  Joseph  of  Arimathaea 


XV.] 


THE  PASSOVER. 


257 


also  goes  to  Pilate,  and,  having  received  permission, 
takes  the  body  of  Jesus,  which  he  with  Nicodemus 
embalms,  and  lays  in  a  new  tomb,  possibly  his  own, 
which  was  near  at  hand.  There  are  two  slight  coin- 
cidences to  be  noted  here.  One  is  the  epithet  roK- 
fjiijaas  in  IMark  xv.  43  (the  original  document),  the 
emphasis  on  which  becomes  more  intelligible  when 
taken  in  connection  with  the  statement  in  St.  John 
that  he  was  a  disciple,  but  '  secretly,  for  fear  of  the 
Jews  : '  this  boldness  therefore  was  the  more  remark- 
able in  him\  The  other  is  the  association  of  Joseph 
with  Nicodemus.  We  learn  from  different  places,  and 
with  regard  to  the  latter  quite  incidentally,  that  they 
were  both  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  would 
thus  naturally  be  acquainted. 

We  gather  from  St.  John's  account  a  singularly 
clear  picture  of  the  Jewish  mode  of  burying.  The 
body  was  first  embalmed,  and  embalmed  simply  by 
the  spices  being  wrapped  in  between  the  folds  of  the 
linen  cloth  or  clothes  in  which  the  body  was  bound. 
Here  as  a  mark  of  special  honour,  and  as  coming 
from  wealthy  men,  the  spices  reach  the  large  amount 
of  100  lbs. 


St.  John 
xix. 


'  Cf.  Ellicott,  p.  362,  n. 


CHAPTER     XVL 


THE   RESURRECTION. 


St.  John  XX. 

Relative 
value  of  the 
different  ac- 
counts of 
the  Resur- 
rection. 


IT  does  not  lie  within  the  scope  of  this  enquiry  to 
determine  the  exact  relation  of  the  four  different 
reports  of  the  Resurrection  to  one  another  ;  but  it 
may  throw  some  light  upon  that  which  it  is  our  duty 
to  investigate,  if  we  state  briefly  the  results  that  seem 
to  be  given  by  a  critical  examination  of  the  other 
three. 

(i)  That  of  St.  Matthew  is  of  these  the  least 
trustworthy.  It  is  comparatively  late  in  date,  and  it 
is  highly  probable  that  legendary  matter  has  been 
mixed  up  with  it  ^ 

(2)  That  of  St.  Mark  appears  to  be  imperfect,  ending 
abruptly  with  ver.  8.  It  is  now  held  by  a  majority  of 
the  best  editors  that  the  rest  of  the  chapter  did  not 
originally  form  part  of  the  Gospel,  though  it  was  an 
early  addition  to  it  and  represents  an  early  tradition  ^. 


*  Cf.  Bleek,  Evangelien,  ii.  475, 
476,  494.  Meyer,  Comm.  on  Matt. 
pp.  601,  607,  608,  610,  613. 

^  At  the  time  when  this  was 
written,  there  seemed  to  be  a  clear 
balance  of  authority  against  the 
verses  —  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Meyer,  Alford,  Westcott.  The  ques- 
tion has  since  been  re-opened  by 
the  elaborate  work  of  Mr.  Burgon 
{The  Last  Twelve  Verses  0/  St.  Mark 
Vindicated:     Parker,    1871),   with 


what  success  it  is  for  the  pro- 
fessed text  critics  to  decide.  One  of 
the  most  competent  of  these,  Mr. 
Hort,  has  declared  against  Mr. 
Burgon 's  view,  in  The  Acadeiny, 
No.  36,  p.  519.  Without  any 
right  to  speak  as  a  text  critic, 
there  are  still  one  or  two  points 
that  I  should  like  to  remark,  (i) 
Mr.  Burgon  notices  certain  points 
in  which  he  thinks  that  the  Lec- 
tionaries  have  affected  the  Mss. ; 


THE  RESDRRECTION. 


259 


St.  Mark's  narrative,  to  the  end  of  ver.  8,  appears  to  be 
drawn  from  the  ground  document  of  the  Synoptists. 

(3)  St.  Luke  has  also  adopted  this,  but  he  has  had 
access  to  a  special  document  or  tradition  besides, 
which  is  of  early  date  and  high  value.  It  is  marked 
by  the  introduction  of  Joanna,  and,  in  the  account  of 
the  walk  to  Emmaus,  by  an  early  Christology,  and 
in  ver.  21  by  a  vivid  reproduction  of  the  politico-theo- 
cratic hopes,  which  must  have  entirely  disappeared 
some  time  before  St.  Luke  wrote.  This  document 
has,  especially  in  ver.  12,  a  certain  affinity  to  St.  John  ; 
not  such,  however,  as  to  admit  the  supposition,  either 
that  the  verse  has  been  interpolated  from  St.  John,  or 
that  the  Johannean  version  has  been  constructed  out 
of  it  :  Keiixeva  should  probably,  on  textual  grounds, 
be  omitted. 

This  document  or  tradition  to  some  extent  con- 
firms the  narrative  in  St.  John,  but  the  best  witness 
to  that  is  itself.  We  have  had  before  narratives  re- 
markable for  beauty  and  for  lifelike  minuteness  of 
detail,  but  here  they  reach  their  climax.  It  is  old 
ground  that  has  been  often  trodden,  but  no  one  would 


is  it  not  equally  possible  that  the 
Lectionaries  (which  all  appear  to  be- 
long to  the  Eastern  Church)  merely 
reflect  the  phenomena  of  the  family 
of  Mss.  used  by  that  Church  ?  (2) 
Can  we  consider  it  proved  that  the 
note  TO  T(\os  in  the  Mss.  had,  al 
ibe  time  of  Eu^ebius,  a  liturgical  ob- 
ject? (3")  If  it  had,  are  we  to 
suppose  that  Eusebius  himself  was 
ignorant  of  that  object,  and  did 
not  know  that  in  calling  attention 
to  the  mark  to  rikos  he  was  merely 
pointing  to  the  end  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical lection?  (4)  Mr.  Burgon 
assumes  that   Eusebius   is  merely 


putting  an  assumed  case  or  allud- 
ing to  some  more  ancient  writer 
without  approving  of  the  omission 
of  the  verses  himself;  but  do  not 
his  '  Canons '  prove  that  he  did 
himself  deliberately  omit  them  ? 
(5)  Is  it  after  all  so  incredible  that 
the  Gospel  should,  for  some  un- 
known reason,  have  ended  abraptly  V 
What  would  Mr.  Burgon  say  to 
the  ending  of  the  Acts  as  compared 
with  the  formal  end  of  the  third  Gos- 
pel and  the  very  formal  openings 
of  both  books  ?  Accident  (i.  e.  un- 
known causes)  plays  a  large  part 
in  all  human  affairs. 


S    2 


St.  John  XX. 


vv.  I -1 8, 


26o 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


[chap. 


St.  John  XX. 


weary  of  treading  it  again,  of  following  the  Magdalen 
as  she  hastens  to  the  tomb  while  the  streaks  of  dawn 
are  barely  breaking  in  the  east,  as  she  then  hurries 
back  frightened  at  what  she  had  seen,  and  tells  her 
strange  story  to  the  two  disciples ;  —  or  again,  of 
going  with  those  two  disciples  to  the  sepulchre,  watch- 
ing how  the  youthful  St.  John  outruns  his  older  com- 
panion, but  when  he  reaches  the  tomb  dares  not  enter 
alone  ;  how  on  the  other  hand  St.  Peter,  less  active 
in  limb  but  bolder  and  not  so  finely  strung  in  spirit, 
no  sooner  arrives  than  he  goes  in,  and  coming  out 
describes  the  position  of  the  linen  clothes  which  are 
now  lying  empty,  and  the  napkin  'that  was  about  His 
head '  folded  in  a  place  by  itself ;  how  then  and  not 
before  the  beloved  disciple  enters  and  the  truth  begins 
to  dawn  upon  him,  notwithstanding  its  suddenness 
and  the  want  of  preparation ;  and  lastly,  most  beau- 
tiful scene  of  all,  how  the  disconsolate  Magdalen, 
lingering  near  the  tomb,  first  sees  bright  forms  within, 
which  she  questions,  and  in  the  midst  of  her  question- 
ing hears  a  step,  or  is  conscious  of  a  presence  behind 
her,  and  turning  round,  between  her  tears  and  her 
abstraction  does  not  look  to  see  who  it  is,  but  con- 
cluding that  it  is  the  gardener,  asks  what  has  been 
done  with  the  body  of  her  Lord — in  reply  she  hears 
but  her  name,  and  she  too  has  but  one  word,  but  in 
that  is  concentrated  all  the  depth  and  transport  of 
her  joy — '  Master  ! ' 

I  doubt  whether  we  can  really  lay  stress  upon  the 
plural  otbaixev  in  ver.  2  as  an  allusion  to  the  narrative  of 
the  Synoptists  :  not  so  much  because  of  oTba  in  ver.  13, 
where  the  situation  is  different,  as  because  the 
Apostle's  memory,  close  and  accurate  as  it  is,  could 


XVI.] 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


261 


hardly  retain  so  fine  a  point  as  a  mere  termination. 
This  would  be  to  assume  a  more  than  verbal,  a  syllabic 
inspiration.  But  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  the 
two  accounts  are  altogether  incompatible.  We  need 
not  suppose  that  Mary  has  hastened  on  before  her 
companions,  but  only  that  she  breaks  away  from  them 
in  order  to  bear  the  tidings  to  the  Apostles^. 

It  is  not  perhaps  incredible,  though  it  is  improbable, 
that  a  forger  should  have  been  so  careful  in  his 
description  of  the  state  of  the  tomb  and  its  contents, 
but  it  is  in  a  high  degree  improbable  that  along  with 
this  he  should  have  preserved  so  accurately  the  cha- 
racter and  individuality  of  the  Apostles. 

We  notice  that  neither  St.  John  nor  St.  Peter  has 
the  vision  of  angels.  It  would  be  simplified  in  the 
case  of  Mary  if  we  were  to  suppose  that  the  first 
question,  '  Woman,  why  weepest  thou .-' '  was  an  echo 
(in  her  imagination)  of  the  second.  Then  there  might 
be  room  to  conjecture  that  what  Mary  saw  was  only 
the  morning  light  shining  upon  the  white  winding 
sheet,  as  it  lay  within  the  tomb.  But  there  is  con- 
siderable evidence  for  the  reality  of  angelic  ap- 
pearances, among  which  these  in  connection  with  the 
Resurrection  are  not  among  the  least  well  attested  ; 
we  may  therefore  hesitate  to  assert  a  negative  with 
regard  to  a 'sphere  which  is  so  entirely  removed  from 
our  knowledge.  The  line  which  separates  the  proven 
from  the  unproven  will  always  be  uncertain,  and  there 
will  be  a  number  of  facts  and  propositions  which  some 
minds  will  place  upon  one  side  of  it  and  others  upon 
the  other.  For  the  rest,  the  vivid  presentation  of  the 
scene  is  only  equalled  by  its  psychological  truth  and 

'  Cf.  Ewald,  p.  415,  and  Meyer's  objections. 


St.  John  x.x. 


262 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


[chap. 


St.  John  Kx. 


vv.  19-31. 


delicacy.  The  words  'Touch  me  not,'  etc.,  seem  to 
have  reference  to  an  impulsive  passionate  motion  on 
the  part  of  Mary,  prompted  as  such  a  motion  would 
be  by  a  mixed  feeling  of  affection,  adoration,  and  the 
desire  for  sensible  proof  of  that  which  she  saw,  to 
convince  herself  whether  it  was  a  spirit  or  no.  It  is 
especially  to  this  implied  enquiry  that  the  answer  is 
addressed.  '  Touch  Me  not — it  is  needless  to  touch 
Me.  A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  you  see  Me 
have.  I  am  not  yet  ascended,  though  My  ascension 
is  indeed  begun.'  Though  I  thus  in  the  main  follow 
Meyer  as  to  the  connection  implied  by  yap,  I  cannot 
but  think  that  there  is  still  something  of  withdrawal 
from  mortal  touch  hidden  under  avajBelSrjKa  compared 
with  ava^aipca.  '  I  have  entered  on  My  return  to  the 
Father,  though  it  is  not  yet  complete.'  So  in  ver.  27, 
the  bodily  touch  is  only  allowed  in  answer  to  doubt, 
and  with  a  certain  reproof  that  it  should  be  necessary. 
Still  the  first  object  in  both  passages  is  to  insist  upon 
the  reality-^the  corporeal  reality — of  the  Risen  Body. 
St.  Luke's  account  of  the  appearance  on  the  evening 
after  the  Resurrection  appears  to  co^itain  traces  of  all 
the  three  separate  appearances  recorded  in  St.  John. 
'  Handle  Me  and  see,'  is  a  vaguer  reminiscence  of 
'  Reach  hither  thy  hand  and  thrust  it  into  My  side.' 
So  in  Mark  xvi.  14,  '  He  upbraided  them  with  their 
unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart,'  compared  with  '  Then 
were  the  disciples  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord,'  John 
XX.  20  (though  this  is  perhaps  partly  an  extension  of 
the  Evangelist's  own  feeling  to  the  rest  of  the  Apo- 
stles), seems  to  find  its  counterpart  rather  in  ver.  27, 
'  Be  not  faithless  but  believing.'  Then  Luke  xxiv.  42, 
'  Have  ye  here  any  meat .''  And  they  gave  Him  a  piece 


XVI.  ] 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


263 


of  broiled  fish' — especially  if  we  may  omit  the  addition 
Koi  0.1:0  ixekia-aCov  K-qpiov — appears  to  be  a  reminiscence 
of  the  later  scene,  John  xxi.  5,  9.  From  the  English 
v^ersion  the  resemblance  would  seem  to  be  closer  than  it 
is  in  reality:  exere  rt  jSpcocnixov  ivOabe  and  1x1']  tl  TTpo(T(pdyLov 
exere  being  translated  by  the  same  word,  as  it  is  not 
impossible  that  they  may  represent  the  same  word  in 
Aramaic. 

It  is  clear  in  any  case,  that  in  the  narrative  of  St. 
Luke  several  separate  incidents  have  coalesced  into 
one,  as  the  Ascension  itself  is  placed  upon  the  same 
evening  (that  of  the  day  of  the  Resurrection),  a  state- 
ment which  the  Evangelist  found  it  necessary  to 
correct  when  he  came  to  write  the  history  of  the  Acts. 
It  would  seem  as  if  the  narrative  had  in  the  first 
instance  come  to  him  in  the  form  of  proof  of  the 
reality  of  the  Resurrection,  the  different  '  moments ' 
being  marked  by  vv.  ^6,  39,  42. 

It  might  be  thought  that  perhaps  St.  John,  or  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  had  constructed  his 
narrative  out  of  these  materials.  But,  as  in  all  other 
cases  where  some  definite  nucleus  such  as  this  is 
suggested,  it  is  found  upon  examination  that  it  really 
comes  in  more  or  less  incidentally,  and  not  in  such  a 
way  as  it  must  have  done  if  the  other  details  encrusted 
round  it  had  really  been  fictitious. 

A  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  Johannean 
version  throughout  is  its  psychological  truth.  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  resurrection  has  been  inti- 
mated beforehand,  the  disciples  are  not  prepared  for 
it,  do  not  understand  it,  and  at  first  find  difficulty  in 
believing  it.  Neither  is  their  unbelief  and  the  gradual 
formation  of  their  faith  described  in  the  same  rough 


St.  John  XX. 


264 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


[chap. 


St.  John  XX. 


and  wholesale  manner  as  in  St.  Luke  and  St.  Mark, 
but  with  many  fine  touches  of  individuality.  When 
Mary  Magdalen  finds  the  sepulchre  empty,  she  has 
but  one  idea — '  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out  of 
the  sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
Him.'  She  has  no  other  way  of  accounting  for  it  than 
that  which  occurred  to  the  hostile  Jews  (Matt,  xxviii. 
13).  So  when  the  two  disciples  come  to  verify  her 
report,  one  of  them  believes — but  what }  It  must 
have  been  a  very  rudimentary  belief,  as  it  is  added, 
'  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  Scripture,  that  He 
must  rise  again  from  the  dead.'  At  the  first  appear- 
ance after  He  had  displayed  His  hands  and  His  side, 
'  the  disciples  were  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord.' 
But  still  they  did  not  all  believe.  There  was  one  at 
least  who  refused  to  be  convinced  without  the  evidence 
of  his  senses. 

The  character  of  Thomas  is  very  delicately  drawn. 
He  is  an  honest  plain  man,  cautious  in  his  beliefs  and 
not  disposed  to  credulity,  but  standing  fast  upon  the 
ground  of  common  sense ;  and  yet,  when  once  his 
reason  is  convinced,  filled  with  strong  and  deep  en- 
thusiasm,— no  very  gifted  nature,  but  an  earnest, 
loyal,  steadfast  soul.  When  the  Lord  invites  him  to 
touch  His  hands  and  His  side,  he  does  not  wait  to 
obey  the  invitation,  but  breaks  out  into  the  passionate 
cry,  '  My  Lord  and  my  God  ! '  His  unbelief  is  gone 
for  ever. 

There  is  deep  truth  and  appropriateness  in  the 
gentle  reproof  which  follows  :  '  Blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed.'  They  are 
blessed,  happy — jxaKapioi. 


XV I.]  THE  RESURRECTION.  265 

'  Serene  will  be  our  days  and  bright,  St.  John  xx. 

And  happy  will  our  nature  be, 

When  love  is  an  unening  light,  | 

And  joy  its  own  security.'  I 

But  this  is  not  the  only  type  of  faith,  and  our  Lord's 
words   still   leave   room    to    question    whether    it    is  | 
always  the  higher. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 


THE   APPEARANCE   IN   GALILEE. 


St.  John  xxi. 

A  Supple- 
mental 
chapter. 


vv.  I-14. 


IS  the  last  chapter  part  of  the  original  or  first  draft 
of  the  Gospel  ?  Is  it  by  the  same  hand  .''  The 
first  of  these  questions  I  think  we  shall  answer  in  the 
negative ;  the  second  in  the  affirmative. 

Apart  from  the  slight  differences  of  style  which  are 
noticed  by  the  commentators,  and  which  possibly  may 
be  sufficient  to  mark  a  different  date  of  composition, 
the  last  two  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter  are  so 
evidently  adapted  for  a  conclusion  that  we  cannot 
doubt  that  the  Gospel  originally  ended  with  them. 
Chap.  xxi.  seems  to  have  been  added  specially  with  a 
view  to  correct  the  misconception  mentioned  in  ver.  23  ; 
but  how  long  after  the  completion  of  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel,  and  under  what  other  circumstances,  we  are 
not  in  a  position  to  say.  The  arguments  that  have 
been  brought  to  prove  that  it  had  a  different  origin 
from  the  main  portion  of  the  Gospel  seem  to  be 
wholly  insufficient.  On  the  other  hand,  those  which 
have  compelled  us  to  see  in  the  latter  the  immediate 
work  of  an  eye-witness  and  an  Apostle,  are  equally 
valid  here.  There  is  the  same  distinctness  of  specifi- 
cation as  to  place  and  persons,  verses  1,2;   the  same 


THE  APPEARANCE  IN  GALILEE. 


267 


wonderful  minuteness  of  description,  verses  7,  8,  9,  11, 
13,  20;  the  same  truth  of  character.  It  is  ahiiost  a 
repetition  of  the  scene  at  the  tomb.  John  is  the  first 
to  recognise  his  Master,  but  Peter  throws  himself  im- 
petuously into  the  water  to  reach  Him.  No  one  but 
an  eye-witness  would  have  thought  of  the  touch  in  ver. 
7  ('  he  girt  his  fisher's  coat  unto  him,  for  he  was 
naked ')  which  exactly  inverts  the  natural  action  of 
one  who  is  about  to  swim,  and  yet  is  quite  accounted 
for  by  the  circumstances. 

I  strongly  suspect  that  the  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes  in  Luke  v.  really  belongs  to  this  place.  St. 
Luke,  not  being  an  eye-witness,  would  naturally  piece 
together  the  floating  fragments  of  tradition  that  came 
to  him  very  much  by  conjecture.  Accordingly,  he  has 
been  caught  by  the  expression,  '  Follow  Me,  and  I 
will  make  you  fishers  of  men'  (Matt.  iv.  19),  and  he 
has  attached  to  it,  not  unnaturally  or  inappropriately, 
the  miraculous  draught,  which  is  quite  foreign  to  the 
Synoptic  original.  In  order  to  introduce  the  situation 
he  has  made  use  of  Mark  iv.  i  (=  Matt.  xiii.  i,  2), 
which,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  in  its  proper  place  he  has 
omitted  (cf.  Luke  viii.  4).  For  the  rest  the  features 
of  the  two  narratives— the  toiling  all  night,  the  com- 
mand, the  auxiliary  boat — are  remarkably  similar. 

We  might  be  even  tempted  to  suppose  that  the 
episode  in  Matt.  xiv.  28-31  originally  sprang  from 
the  action  attributed  to  Peter  by  St.  John.  That  too 
is  recorded  by  only  a  single  Evangelist — 7iot  the 
Apostle  St.  Matthew,  who  wrote  only  the  '  collection 
of  discourses,'  but  the  compiler  or  editor  of  the  first 
Gospel,  who  cannot  have  been  an  eye-witness.  It  is 
not  implied,  but  is  rather  excluded  or  significantly 


St.  John  XX', 


St.  Luke 

V.    I-II. 


St.  Matt. 
xiv.  28-31. 


268 


THE  APPEARAISfCE  IN  GALILEE. 


[chap. 


ignored  in  the  parallel  narrative  of  St.  Mark  and  St. 
John.  And  it  resembles  the  incident  related  in  this 
last  chapter  of  the  fourth  Gospel  both  as  being  the 
sequel  to  a  miracle  and  as  to  the  spirit  by  which  the 
ardent  Apostle  was  animated.  Other  traits  in  the 
Matthean  version  would  seem  to  be  derived  from  the 
earlier  storm  at  sea—'  O  thou  of  little  faith ' — the 
wonder  of  the  disciples.  But,  given  these  materials, 
there  is  nothing  essential  added  in  the  first  Gospel  : 
it  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  a  coalescence  of  the  two 
incidents  in  the  process  of  oral  transmission  ;  and  the 
marked  silence  of  two  witnesses  of  the  first  order,  like 
St.  John  and  the  fundamental  document  of  the  Sy- 
noptists,  must  be  taken  to  outweigh  the  secondary 
evidence  on  which  the  narrative  rests. 

I  know  that  these  combinations  will  appear  hazard- 
ous to  many  minds.  They  are  not  of  course  to  be 
pressed  at  all  dogmatically.  A  certain  slight  degree, 
perhaps  we  may  say,  of  probability  is  the  most  that 
can  be  claimed  for  them.  But  when  we  come  to 
weigh  document  against  document  and  to  consider 
the  relative  position  of  the  writers,  I  think  they  will 
commend  themselves  with  some  force  to  an  impartial 
judgment.  If  they  really  held  good  they  would  only 
tend  to  throw  out  still  more  conspicuously  the  au- 
thentic and  original  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

Ver.  12  ('  None  of  the  disciples  durst  ask  Him,  Who 
art  Thou  ?')  is  another  instance  in  which  the  feelings 
of  the  Apostolic  circle  are  represented  from  within. 
It  gives  a  graphic  picture  of  the  hushed  wonder  and 
awe  with  which  the  Apostles  beheld  what  had  passed. 

In  ver.  1 5  we  have  once  more  a  touch  of  exquisite 
psychology.     It  is  Peter's  modesty  that  speaks,  and 


XVII.] 


THE  APPEARANCE  IN  GALILEE. 


269 


his  sense  of  shame  at  his  own  shortcomings.  He  can- 
not appeal  to  his  proved  constancy,  because  he  knows 
that  his  constancy  had  been  tried  and  found  wanting. 
He  has  indeed  nothing  to  appeal  to,  and  yet  he  is 
conscious  that  his  affection  is  not  unreal  or  insincere, 
and  he  trusts  to  Him  who  searches  the  hearts  :  'Yea, 
Lord,  Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee,'  '  Thou  knowest 
all  things  ;  Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee.'  This  is 
truly  Johannean,  as  indeed  is  the  whole  passage,  with 
its  tender  pathos  and  delicate  changes,  ayaviav — 
(pL\eu',  (36(TK(LV — TTOLjjLau'eiv,  apvia — TrpolSara. 

The  prophecy  of  Peter's  death  is  attested  as  histo- 
rical precisely  by  its  vagueness.  '  Thou  shalt  stretch 
forth  thy  hands '  is  the  only  part  of  the  description 
that  can  be  taken  to  refer  directly  to  crucifixion ; 
and  it  is  not  clear  that  it  does  not  refer  merely  to 
stretching  out  the  hands  before  the  judges.  If  it  does 
refer  to  crucifixion,  it  would  be  a  curious  inversion  of 
the  order  of  events,  for  '  another  shall  gird  thee ' 
clearly  refers  to  the  loading  with  chains,  and  'carry 
thee  whither  thou  wouldest  not '  to  the  leading  to  the 
place  of  execution ;  yet  these  come  after  not  before 
the  outstretched  hands.  It  speaks  well  for  the  con- 
scientiousness of  the  Evangelist,  that  writing  certainly 
after  the  death  of  St.  Peter  he  has  not  accommodated 
his  description  more  closely  to  the  circumstances  of  it. 
Passages  like  Luke  xix.  43,  44,  xxi.  20,  24,  compared 
with  the  parallels  in  the  other  Synoptists,  show  how 
easily  details  taken  from  the  actual  fact  slipped  into  a 
prophecy  recorded  after  the  event. 

If  we  accept  the  supposition  (for  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  much  is  to  be  urged)  that  this  chapter  was  written 
by,  and  therefore  during  the  lifetime  of  the  beloved 


St.  John  .xxi. 


270 


THE  APPEARANCE  IN  GALILEE. 


[chap. 


St.  John  xxi. 


vv.  24,  25. 


disciple  himself,  then  we  have  in  verses  22,  23,  a  further 
confirmation  of  its  Apostolic  origin.  It  was  a  belief 
universal  in  the  Apostolic  times,  and  naturally  con- 
fined to  them,  that  the  second  advent  would  take 
place  before  the  first  generation  of  Christians  had 
passed  away.  It  is  clear  that  both  ver,  23  and  ver.  24 
suppose  the  author  of  the  Gospel  to  be  still  living  at 
the  time  of  its  publication,  and  to  have  been  an 
original  disciple  of  the  Lord.  Can  we  believe  that 
this  is  deliberate  fiction  ?  or  that  if  a  fiction  it  would 
have  been  so  well  preserved  ? 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  amanuensis  who  wrote 
this  last  part  of  the  Gospel  inserted  ver.  24,  as  speaking 
for  himself  and  for  the  whole  Asiatic  Church  ('  zvc  know 
that  His  testimony  is  true').  But  the  hyperbole  of  ver. 
25  is  peculiarly  natural  in  an  Apostle.  With  his 
thoughts  and  memor}^  full  to  overflowing  of  his  Lord's 
acts  and  his  Lord's  words,  he  might  well  say  that  the 
world  itself  could  not  contain  the  record  of  them.  In 
the  mouth  of  any  other  person  such  an  expression 
would  be  strained  and  affected. 

It  will  be  seen  that  I  have  assumed  throughout  the 
foregoing  the  reality  of  the  Resurrection  and  of  the 
appearances  which  followed  upon  it.  The  reader  may 
take  it,  if  he  will,  merely  as  an  assumption  ;  though  as 
such  I  believe  it  is  necessary  to  make  the  narrative 
intelligible,  and  without  it  the  whole  mass  of  evidence 
that  has  hitherto  been  accumulating  before  us  will  be 
resolved  into  a  tissue  of  illusions.  Just  as  it  follows 
that  if  the  Gospel  was  written  by  an  eye-witness,  the 
Resurrection  must  be  true,  so  also  does  it  follow  that 
if  the  Resurrection  is  not  true,  the  Gospel  has  not 
been  written  by  an  eye-witness.     But  that,  with  the 


XVII.] 


THE  APPEARANCE  IN  GALILEE. 


27r 


facts  before  us,  is  extremely  difficult  to  believe.  And 
when  we  pass  from  this  single  Gospel,  and  take  in  the 
whole  of  the  evidence  from  other  sources,  from  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  from  the  Acts,  from  the  Apocalypse, 
from  St.  Peter,  but  above  all  from  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  it  acquires  such  force  and  such  dimensions  as 
even  a  prejudiced  reason  can  hardly  withstand.  When, 
leaving  the  precise  manner  of  the  Resurrection  and 
the  precise  nature  and  sequence  of  the  appearances 
that  follow  upon  it,  we  fix  our  attention  solely  upon 
the  fact  itself,  the  evidence  for  it  is  found  to  stand  out 
in  a  v^ariety  and  with  a  volume  equal  to  that  for  any 
event  the  best  attested  in  history.  In  the  face  of  this, 
and  taking  into  account  the  whole  character  of  the 
phenomena  in  connection  with  which  the  Resurrection 
stands,  I  cannot  refuse  credence  to  it  merely  on  the 
strength  of  an  induction  '  by  simple  enumeration,' 
based  upon  present  experience,  i.  e.  upon  a  range  of 
facts  existing  under  conditions  that  may  not  be,  and 
indeed  are  not,  the  same\    For,  looking  at  the  broad 

pened  The  strength  of  this  pre- 
sumption will  depend  ui)on  the 
identity  of  the  conditions  prevalent 
at  the  two  periods  But,  apart 
from  the  enormous  tax  upon  our 
ignorance  involved  in  the  assertion 
that  they  are  identical,  the  mere 
fact  of  the  origination  of  Chris- 
tianity shows  that  they  are  not. 
When  we  think  of  what  Christ- 
ianity is,  and  from  what  it  sprang, 
it  will  not  seem  unrtasonable  to 
interpose  a  divine  agency  in  the  act 
of  its  production  At  least,  until 
M.  Renan  and  his  fellow  critics 
have  succeeded  in  accounting  for 
it  by  natural  causes,  the  world  at 
large  will  not  cease  to  account  for 
it  by  supernatural. 


1  It  is  strange  that  a  writer  of 
M.  Kenan's  acuteness  should  have 
been  betrayed  into  an  argument  so 
shallow  and  illogical  as  that  on  p. 
xcvii  of  his  Introduction.  No  one 
supposes  that  miracles  such  as 
took  place  at  the  origin  of  Christ- 
ianity, take  place  now.  It  is 
therefore  a  wholly  irrelevant  chal- 
lenge to  demand  that  miracles 
should  be  submitted  to  the  test  of 
experiment.  As  well  say  that 
Phidias  did  not  carve  the  Olympian 
Zeus,  because  no  one  can  carve 
an  Olympian  Zeus  now.  The  real 
question  is,  what  kind  of  presump- 
tion does  the  non-occurrence  of 
miracles  at  the  present  time  afford 
against  the  alleged  fact  that  1800 
yeais  ago  miracles    actually  hap- 


St.John  xxi. 


272 


THE  APPEARANCE  IN  GALILEE. 


St.  John  xxi. 


features  of  the  case  ; — looking,  that  is,  at  the  conditions 
out  of  which  Christianity  arose,  and  in  the  midst  of  which 
it  was  estabHshed  and  grew  ;  looking  moreover  at  the 
phenomena  of  Christianity  itself,  as  compared  with  all 
other  religious  manifestations,  and  even  with  its  own 
very  imperfect  historical  realisation  ;  looking  at  its 
place  in  the  history  of  the  world  and  the  power  that 
it  still  retains  over  the  spirits  of  men, — we  are  obliged 
to  take  it  out  of  the  category  of  ordinary  effect  and 
cause,  and  the  harmony  of  things  is  rather  preserved 
than  broken,  when  we  attribute  to  it  an  origination 
which  is  miraculous  and  divine. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THE  GENUINENESS 
OF   THE  GOSPEL. 


WE  have  now  traversed  the  Gospel  from  begin-  1  Objections, 
ning  to  end,  testing  at  each  step  the  data  that 
seemed  to  be  presented  to  us,  and  seeking  to  determine 
their  exact  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  our  enquiry — 
the  question,  that  is,  who  was  its  author,  and  what 
amount  of  credence  we  are  to  give  to  its  contents. 
But  as  yet  these  data  are  scattered  indiscriminately 
over  the  surface,  and  it  is  time  that  they  were  collected 
in  a  form  somewhat  more  compact  and  systematic. 
We  may  do  this  perhaps  best  by  first  running  through 
briefly  the  arguments  that  are  usually  brought  against 
the  Johannean  hypothesis,  and  then  by  drawing  out 
the  chief  of  those  by  which  it  seems  to  be  established. 
For  the  first  half  of  this  process  we  will  not  trust  our 
own  statement,  but  will  give  the  arguments  as  they  are 
urged  by  the  latest  writer  who  has  taken  this  side  of 
the  question.  Dr.  Keim^ 

Dr.  Keim  begins  by  remarking  that  the  question  as 
to  the  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  hangs  closely 
together  with  that  as  to  its  historical  character,  and  by 

'  Cf.  Gescbicble  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  121-133. 
T 


274 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  [CHAP. 


From  the 
character  of 
the  Gospel. 


showing  that  a  low  view  must  be  'taken  of  the  latter, 
he  thinks,  very  rightly,  that  the  Johannean  hypothesis 
must  be  directly  negatived.  Accordingly  he  sets  him- 
self to  prove  that  the  Gospel  is  unhistorical,  and  this 
in  three  ways  :  (i)  by  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  in 
itself ;  (2)  by  its  relation  to  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  ; 
(3)  by  its  relation  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

It  is  unfortunate,  however,  that  this  is  far  from  the 
best  part  of  Dr.  Keim's  learned  and  valuable  work. 
It  is  rhetorically  written,  and  consequently  wants 
much  of  that  precision  which  in  treating  of  such  a 
subject  is  especially  necessary. 

I.  We  see  this  at  the  outset.  Dr.  Keim's  first 
argument  is  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  Gospel 
in  itself. 

(a)  'Das  Auswahl-Evangelium  ist  ein  einseitiges 
Evangelium.'  '  A  Gospel  which  does  not  profess  to 
be  a  complete  history,  but  gives  only  certain  select 
passages,  is  a  one-sided  Gospel.'  Perfectly  true  ;  in 
fact  the  proposition  is  almost  a  tautological  one,  so 
long  as  it  is  kept  within  its  proper  limits.  The  fourth 
Gospel  is  certainly  a  Gospel  '  of  selections,'  though 
what  the  principle  of  selection  has  been  we  cannot  in 
every  case  exactly  say.  No  doubt  it  was  written  in 
the  main  to  assert  the  Divinity  of  Chrisf,  and  the 
discourses  especially  seem  to  have  been  chosen  with 
reference  to  this.  But  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  too, 
the  same,  or  very  similar  claims,  are  put  forward. 
And  there  is  nothing  whatever  to  show  that  the  other 
Synoptic  matter  is  excluded.  When  Dr.  Keim 
extends  his  proposition  so  as  to  make  it  say  this,  he  is 
alleging  much  more  than  can  be  proved.  There  is 
ample  room  in  the  Johannean  narrative  for  that  of  the 


XVIII.]       THE   GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 


275 


Synoptists  to  be  inserted.  The  very  points  in  which 
the  two  agree  show  how  easily  the  agreement  might 
have  been  extended.  But  the  fallacy  is  to  suppose 
that  the  Synoptists  give  us  a  complete  history  or  any- 
thing like  it.  How  many  points  do  they  touch  only 
to  leave !  Some  of  these  the  fourth  Gospel  has 
cleared  up,  but  many  others  still  remain,  and  the 
thoughtful  student  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  cannot 
but  feel,  that  there  was  room  for  more  'supplementary' 
Gospels  than  one. 

(^)  '  Not  only  is  the  fourth  Gospel  one-sided,  but  it 
is  also  in  a  high  degree  subjective,  i.  e.  historically 
unreliable,'  (willkiirlich).  This,  Dr.  Keim  says,  is  con- 
fessed as  regards  the  discourses.  But  the  question  is 
entirely  one  of  degree,  and  in  examining  the  discourses 
one  by  one  we  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  not  so  far  subjective  as  that  they  cannot  have  been 
w'ritten  by  an  ear-witness  and  an  Apostle,  or  so  as 
essentially  to  misrepresent  the  originals  of  which  they 
are  the  reproduction. 

(y)  A  particular  mark  of  this  subjectivity.  Dr.  Keim 
sees  in  the  '  system  of  triplets,'  which  is  his  own  pe- 
culiar discovery.  'Three  times  is  Jesus  in  Galilee, 
three  times  in  Judaea,  twice  three  feasts  fall  in  the 
period  of  His  ministry,  especially  three  Passovers,  at 
the  beginning,  in  the  middle,  and  at  the  end,  which 
either  prophesy  or  bring  on  His  death  :  He  performs 
three  miracles  in  Galilee,  three  in  Jerusalem.  Twice 
three  days  He  moves  in  the  vicinity  of  John,  three 
days  mark  the  history  of  Lazarus,  six  that  of  the 
last  Passover,  three  words  upon  the  Cross,  three 
appearances  after  the  Resurrection.'  Who  ever  before 
suspected  a  deep  mystical  meaning   in  notices  that 

T  2 


2)6 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST 


[chap.     , 


seem  so  natural  and  so  incidental  ?  But  the  whole 
of  this  elaborate  scheme  is  a  pure  fancy.  It  will  not 
bear  examination.  It  is  not  merely  three  times  that 
Jesus  is  in  Galilee,  but  Galilee  is  His  home  and  the 
centre  of  His  mission.  The  three  visits  to  Jerusalem 
have  to  be  very  roughly  reckoned — the  third  at  least 
is  broken  by  a  retreat  of  not  less  than  a  month's 
duration  to  Ephraim  and  Peraea.  There  is  nothing 
to  lead  us  to  class  together  the  three  feasts  which 
are  not  passovers,  and  of  those  which  are,  one  has  no 
bearing  upon  the  history  and  is  only  noticed  casually 
in  the  course  of  events  that  are  laid  in  Galilee  (vi.  4). 
There  are  not  six  miracles  but  seven,  of  which  four 
are  in  Galilee,  that  at  Cana,  at  Capernaum,  the  feed- 
ing of  the  five  thousand,  and  the  walking  upon  the 
water.  Three  days  are  mentioned  during  which  our 
Lord  is  for  the  first  time  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
John,  though  more  are  implied.  The  second  time 
there  is  no  mention  of  days  at  all.  The  history  of 
Lazarus  takes  up  four  days,  not  three ;  the  words 
upon  the  cross  are  not  counted ;  and  besides  the  ap- 
pearances to  the  disciples  there  is  also  that  to  the 
Magdalen.  On  the  same  principle  it  would  be  just 
as  easy  to  discover  other  numbers  besides  three, 
two  disciples  of  John,  two  days  in  Samaria,  two 
firkins  in  the  pitchers ;  five  disciples  first  called, 
five  barley  loaves,  five  porches  in  Bethesda  ;  and  fours, 
sixes,  sevens  in  the  same  way ;  how  Dr.  Keim  would 
deal  with  the  larger  numbers  I  hardly  know,  e.  g. 
V.  5,  vi.  7,  19,  xi.  18,  xii.  5,  xxi.  8,  ii. 

(8)  '  The  subjective  freedom  of  the  author  being  thus 
shown  to  penetrate  to  the  very  marrow  of  the  history 
and  discourses,'  it  remains  to  see  how  it  is  applied. 


XVIII.]       THE   GENUINENESS  OF    THE   GOSPEL. 


277 


This  appears  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  and  of 
the  opposition  between  light  and  darkness,  which  has 
been  carried  out  in  the  history  with  '  mathematical 
accuracy.'  We  should  like  to  see  the  author  who, 
with  no  other  data,  constructed  out  of  them  the 
fourth  Gospel.  The  doctrines  of  the  Logos,  and  of 
light  and  darkness,  are  the  most  general  of  abstrac- 
tions which  do  not  affect  the  history  at  all.  What 
outline  could  be  simpler  than  that  which  they  sup- 
ply ?  Would  not  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptists, 
we  might  almost  say  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  fit  into 
it  equally  well  ?  If  a  historian  were  to  describe  the 
political  history  of  England  as  a  conflict  between  the 
principles  of  Order  and  Progress,  should  we  therefore 
at  once  set  down  his  work  as  constructed  a  priori? 
Not  one  whit  more  is  suspicion  justifiable  against  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

(e)  Lastly,  it  is  argued  that  the  figure  thus  con- 
structed out  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  not 
human.  The  Eigure  that  wc  find  in  the  Synoptists, 
in  St.  Paul,  and  indeed  in  all  other  Christian  docu- 
ments, is  in  some  respects  not  human,  and  it  is  true 
that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  insisted 
especially  upon  these.  But  the  fact,  that  he  has  thus 
been  led,  in  the  discourses  especially,  to  turn  the  light 
upon  a  particular  aspect  of  his  subject,  gives  to  his 
treatment  of  it  an  appearance  of  monotony  which 
does  not  really  exist.  What  can  be  more  tenderly 
or  beautifully  human  than  the  character  of  Christ  as 
portrayed  by  St.  John  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Synoptists  that  would  take  the  place  of  the  rais- 
ing of  Lazarus,  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet, 
the    last    discourses,    the    appearance    to    Mary    in 


278 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  [cHAP. 


rom  Its 
relation  to 
the  writings 
of  St.  Paul. 


the  garden,  the  discourse  with  Peter  by  the  shore  of 
the  lake.  If  Gethsemane  is  omitted,  the  interview 
with  the  Greeks  is  given  ;  if  the  spiritual  agony  of 
the  cross  retires  into  the  background,  the  physical 
anguish  comes  out  no  less  than  with  the  Synoptists. 
A  writer  who  was  merely  embodying  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos  could  not  have  written  more  than  the  last 
verses  of  the  history  of  Lazarus.  Neither  would  he 
have  written  xiv.  28,  '  My  Father  is  greater  than  L' 

IL  But  Dr.  Keim  does  not  seem  to  set  very  much 
store  himself  by  the  arguments  hitherto  brought  for- 
ward, for  he  introduces  the  next  section  thus :  '  But 
how  much  stronger  are  the  objections  derived  from 
the  oldest  documents  of  Christianity,  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels.'  And  yet  the 
objections  drawn  from  these  are  hardly  such  as  can 
be  called  strong.  No  doubt  St.  John  does  exhibit  a 
certain  advance  on  St.  Paul.  But  we  must  be  careful 
to  distinguish  between  portions  where  the  Evangelist 
is  speaking  in  his  own  person,  such  as  the  Prologue, 
and  those  which  form  part  of  the  objective  history, 
and  in  this  again  we  must  distinguish  between  the 
main  substance  of  fact  and  that  outward  colouring  of 
presentation  in  which  the  individuality  of  the  writer 
necessarily  displays  itself.  Bearing  these  considera- 
tions in  mind,  I  do  not  think  we  shall  see  anything 
in  the  relations  of  St.  John  to  St.  Paul  which  serves 
to  discredit  the  Gospel  as  history.  The  points  that 
Dr.  Keim  has  noticed  are  these  : — 

(a)  The  Christology.  But  if  our  examination  of  the 
Johannean  discourses  is  sound,  it  will  appear  that  the 
Christology  to  which  they  give  expression  is  not  pe- 
culiar to  St.  John,  but  is  fundamentally  that  of  the 


XVIII.]       THE   GENUINENESS  OF  THE   GOSPEL. 


279 


Synoptists  and  of  Christ  Himself.  The  one  part  of 
the  Johanncan  Christology  that  is  found  in  St.  Paul 
but  not  in  the  Synoptists  is  the  doctrine  of  Pre-cxist- 
ence.  But  the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  do  not  allude 
to  it  creates  but  very  slight  presumption  against  its 
originality.  And  as  it  is  found  both  in  St.  John  and  in 
St.  Paul,  the  hypothesis  lies  quite  as  near  that  they 
took  it  from  a  common  source,  or  at  least  inferred  it 
from  common  premises. 

(i8)  The  Law.  Dr.  Keim  argues,  chiefly  from  a 
single  expression,  '  your  law,'  which  is  found  in  three 
places ;  but  in  each  case,  as  we  should  expect,  in  an 
argiivicntiim  ad  honiiiicin.  St.  John  does  indeed  to 
some  extent  hold  a  more  objective  relation  to  the 
Law  and  to  the  Jewish  people  than  St.  Paul  ;  but  this 
is  accounted  for  simply  by  his  removal  from  them  in 
space  and  time,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  had  cut,  more  than  anything  that 
preceded  it,  the  connection  between  Jewish  insti- 
tutions and  Christianity.  In  spite  of  this  we  have 
seen  that  St.  John's  relation  to  the  Law  is  really  less 
negative  than  St.  Paul's,  and  is  not  otherwise  than 
in  accordance  with  the  historical  facts.  Dr.  Keim 
exaggerates  very  much  when  he  says,  'Jesus  is 
represented  as  having  abolished  the  Law  while  still 
upon  earth,  and  as  having  called  heathens  by  the 
side  of  Jews.'  On  the  contrary,  it  is  precisely  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  that  the  Law  is  represented  as  most 
scrupulously  observed '  ;  the  prerogative  position  of 
Israel  is  throughout  recognized  ;  the  Samaritans  are 
not  in  the  general  sense  heathen,  and  the  Gospel  is 

'  '  The  journeys  to  the  stated  Entwerthung  des  Alten  gelten) ! 
festivals  at  Jerusalem  serve  only  to  Keim  (after  Ililgenfeld),  p.  124, 
discredit   the    old    religion '    (der     ad  in. 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  [cHAP. 


preached  to  them  in  an  incidental  and  occasional 
manner,  the  account  of  which  is  confirmed  by  a  well 
attested  document  in  St.  Luke.  The  Greeks  men- 
tioned in  chap,  xii,  from  the  fact  of  their  attending 
the  Passover,  must  have  been  proselytes,  and  were 
probably  '  proselytes  of  the  covenant ' :  besides,  we 
are  only  told  that  they  were  presented  to  our  Lord, 
not  that  they  were  distinctly  admitted  into  the 
Christian  circle.  The  Johannean  narrative  contains 
nothing  that  goes  so  far  as  the  Synoptic  healing  of 
the  Syrophoenician's  daughter ;  whereas,  if  it  had 
really  been  a  forgery  written  from  the  point  of  view 
that  Dr.  Keim  contends,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  would  have  gone  much  further.  There  was  a 
place  already  made  for  such  narratives  in  the  history, 
which  legend  or  invention  might  have  easily  filled. 

(y)  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven'  with  St.  John  lies  in 
the  present,  with  St.  Paul  in  the  future.  St.  John 
also  looks  forward  to  a  second  Coming  and  to  a  final 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  in  the  future  ;  cf.  v.  27- 
29,  xiv.  1-3,  xxi.  32.  But  so  far  as  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  the  two  Apostles  it  corresponds  to  the 
different  points  of  view  which  they  occupy  while  they 
are  writing,  and  is  a  further  proof  that  the  Gospel  was 
written  by  one  '  who  had  seen  the  Lord.'  The  key 
to  the  Johannean  conception  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Synoptists  (Mark  ii.  19  par.),  '  Can  the  children  of  the 
bridechamber  fast  while  the  bridegroom  is  with  them  .-' 
As  long  as  the  bridegroom  is  with  them  they  cannot 
fast.'  The  Apostle  throws  himself  back  into  the  time 
when  he  had  felt  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
present  with  its  King.  There  was  no  need  to  look 
forward  to  the  future  '  in  those  days.' 


XVIII.]       THE   GENUINENESS  OF   THE    GOSPEL. 


281 


(8)  Dr.  Kcim  notices  a  single  fact,  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  in  regard  to  which  the  Synoptists 
arc  supported  by  St.  Paul.  But  the  omission  of  this 
is  even  less  an  argument  against  the  fourth  Gospel 
than  other  omissions,  as  the  circumstance  was  so  no- 
torious and  so  constantly  brought  to  the  memory  of 
Christians  that  to  repeat  it  would  have  been  super- 
fluous and  contrary  to  the  principle  which  the  Evan- 
gelist had  proposed  to  himself. 

In  all  these  objections  brought  from  the  writings  of 
St.  Paul  I  can  see  nothing  that  furnishes  a  substantial 
reason  for  rejecting  the  Gospel  as  the  work  of  an 
Apostle. 

III.  Neither  does  this  appear  any  more  conclu- 
sively from  a  comparison  with  the  Synoptists. 
(a)  1  The  first  two  items  of  this,  the  Christology, 
(^)  J  and  the  relation  to  the  Law,  we  have  already 
considered.  There  is  no  essential  difference.  The 
Christ  of  the  Synoptists  is  the  Jewish  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  Man,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Centre  round  which 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  revolves,  the  Object  of  faith, 
the  Source  of  spiritual  life,  refreshment,  and  peace,  the 
Author  of  salvation.  He  is  the  Shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
the  Son  of  the  Great  King  for  whom  the  marriage 
supper  is  made.  He  is  Himself  the  King  of  the  Mes- 
sianic community,  its  Founder,  and  its  Head.  He 
has  power  to  forgive  sins,  to  heal  diseases,  to  cast  out 
devils,  to  raise  the  dead  to  life.  At  His  coming  Satan 
falls  from  heaven.  He  will  one  day  return  in  the  ma- 
jesty of  His  Father  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 
And  it  will  be  by  the  services  that  they  have  rendered 
to  Him  that  men  will  be  judged.  During  His  sojourn 
upon  earth  He  is  the  Revelation  of  the  Father.     All 


From  its  re- 
lation to  the 
Synoptic 
Gospels. 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  [chap. 


power  is  delivered  unto  Him.  'No  man  knoweth  the  Son 
but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will 
reveal  Him.'  There  is  no  reason  to  say  with  Dr. 
Keim  that  this  consciousness  of  union  with  the  Father 
is  confined  to  certain  exalted  moments — it  is  stated 
as  absolutely  and  as  entirely  without  qualification  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  in  St.  John  \  The  single 
particular  that  is  wanting  is  the  pre-existence,  and  in 
place  of  that  we  are  presented  with  the  '  Son  of  a  pure 
Virgin.'  What  else  is  there  in  St.  John  that  this  de- 
scription will  not  include  ?  What  is  there  that  the 
compilers  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  might  not  have 
written  if  they  had  had  access  to  all  the  facts  .'*  True, 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  '  Gospel  of  selections ' — it  pre- 
sents one  side  more  prominently  than  the  other ;  and 
this  prevents  it  from  exhibiting  the  same  variety,  the 
same  many-sidedness,  the  same  openness  to  all  that  is 
in  the  world  and  in  man  ;  but  it  does  not  therefore 
follow  that  it  is  not  historical,  or  the  soundest  and  the 
truest  history. 

(y)  Among  particular  statements  in  which  St.  John 
is  at  variance  with  the  Synoptists,  Dr.  Keim  naturally 
singles  out  'the  time  and  place  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus.'  But  there  is  no  thoroughly  impartial  critic 
at  the  present  day  who  does  not  regard  the  advantage 
in  this  respect  as  on  the  side  of  St,  John.  This  subject 
has  been  treated  so  exhaustively  by  Dr.  Weizsacker  ^ 
that  I  need  not  do  more  than  refer  to  his  work  and  to 
the  investigation  in  the  body  of  the  present  enquiry. 
It  is  shown  that  the  Johannean  version  is  not  only  in 

^  See  above,  p.  109  n. 

^  Untersiichungen,  pp.  306-311.     Compare  also  pp.  54-58  above. 


XVIII.]       THE   GENUINENESS   OF    THE    GOSPEL.  283 


accordance  with  historical  probability,  but  also  that  it 
is  not  excluded  by  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  is  rather 
on  a  number  of  minute  points  implied  and  confirmed 
by  them.  M.  Renan  calls  this  a  '  signal  triumph '  for 
the  fourth  Gospel,  and  I  cannot  think  that  he  is 
wrong.  When  two  historical  documents  are  distin- 
guished, the  one  by  vagueness  and  uncertainty  of  out- 
line, the  other  by  marked  precision,  we  naturally  con- 
clude that  the  author  of  the  latter  stood  in  nearer 
relation  to  the  events,  and  in  this  case  such  a  conclu- 
sion is  abundantly  confirmed. 

(8)  It  is  noticeable  that  the  rest  of  Dr.  Keim's  in- 
stances are  taken  entirely  from  the  last  division  of  the 
Gospel.  They  are  (i)  the  way  in  which  the  last  events 
are  introduced,  (2)  the  miracle  at  Bethany,  (3)  the 
day  of  the  Crucifixion.  All  these  we  have  discussed 
in  their  places,  (i)  is  a  question  of  historical  proba- 
bility which  cannot  be  otherwise  than  inconclusive,  as 
it  has  to  be  measured  by  a  subjective  standard.  Na- 
turally the  commentators  and  critics  divide  themselves 
into  two  camps.  Renan,  Ewald,  Weizsacker,  think  that 
the  Johannean  version  is  the  more  probable,  and  that 
in  that  of  the  Synoptists  the  deadly  hostility  of  the 
hierarchic  party  in  Jerusalem  is  not  sufficiently  ac- 
counted for.  Dr.  Keim,  on  the  other  hand,  with  those 
who  agree  with  him,  inverts  this.  He  maintains  that 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  motives  by  which  the  con- 
flict is  brought  to  a  crisis  have  long  been  '  used  up,' 
and  that  therefore  the  miracle  of  Bethany  is  invented 
to  take  their  place.  The  opposite  opinions  cancel 
each  other,  and  we  must  leave  the  question  where  it 
stands.  (2)  Our  acceptance  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
will  depend  partly  on  the  conception  we  may  have 


284 


CURRENT  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  [chap. 


formed  as  to  the  a  priori  improbability  of  miracles, 
and  partly  upon  the  importance  we  attach  to  the 
silence  of  the  Synoptists.  This  last,  as  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  show,  arises  from  the  way  in  which  they 
were  composed,  and  is  part  of  the  general  fact  that 
they  are  silent  as  to  all  the  events  that  take  place 
in  Judaea  before  the  triumphal  entry.  The  former 
question  is  properly  suspended  until  the  weight  of 
the  historical  evidence  for  miracles  is  determined. 
(3)  The  day  of  the  Crucifixion  we  have  shown  to  be 
rightly  fixed  by  St.  John.  And  here  again  unpreju- 
diced critics  like  Renan,  not  to  speak  of  Liicke,  Bleek, 
Meyer,  and  Ewald,  are  all  of  the  same  opinion. 
We  wait  to  see  what  Dr.  Keim  will  have  to  say 
when  he  comes  to  this  part  of  his  history,  but  it  is 
with  the  expectation  that  he  will  find  it  extremely 
difficult  to  prove  his  point. 

'  This,'  he  adds,  '  shall  be  enough,  and  as  to  the  rest 
we  will  say  nothing.  In  this  we  do  not  include  the 
rubric  of  general,  historical,  or  geographical  errors, 
which  it  is  the  fashion  to  prove  from  other  sources 
than  the  Synoptists,  from  the  Old  Testament, 
Josephus,  Eusebius,  or  Jerome.  These  supposed 
errors  with  regard  to  Bethany  and  Bethesda,  Kana 
and  Kidron,  Salem  and  Sychar,  with  regard  to  the 
"  high  priest  of  that  year,"  and  the  distance  of  Cana 
from  Capernaum,  Bethany,  and  Peraea,  there  is  the 
less  reason  to  believe  (braucht  man  desto  weniger  zu 
glauben),  as  the  author  otherwise  displays  a  fairly 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  country,  and  the  most 
difficult  cases  are  explained  by  special  intention.  The 
high  priest  "  of  that  fatal  year"  is  emphatic,  and  does 
not  at  all  betray  the  sense  of  yearly  change  ;  Sychar 


xvill.]        THE   GENUINENESS  OF  THE   GOSPEL. 


285 


is  a  vernacular  or  mock  name  for  Sichem  ;  Salem  and 
Ain  are  situated  in  Judaea,  or  perhaps  rather  in 
Samaria,  up  to  the  borders  of  which  the  Forerunner 
made  his  way  from  Jacob's  well ;  the  enhancement  of 
distance '  must  correspond  to  the  enhancement  of  the 
miracle.'  So  Dr.  Keim  disposes  of  the  ordinary 
arguments  against  the  fourth  Guspel.  But  are  his 
own  any  more  substantial  ?  Do  they  not  all  rest  upon 
vague  generalities  and  probabilities  which  give  way 
when  they  are  put  to  the  proof  ?  Are  they  enough  to 
prove  a  negative  conclusion,  or  to  overthrow  the 
weight  of  positive  evidence  that  can  be  brought 
against  them  ?  My  own  conviction  is  that  they  are 
wholly  insufficient  to  do  this,  and  I  cannot  but  think 
that  it  will  be  shared  by  the  reader. 


*  There  is  no  enhancement. 
With  regard  to  Capernaum,  see  p. 
102  above  ;  with  regard  to  Peraea, 


there  are  many  parts  of  that  district 
which  would  be  at  least  four  days' 
journey  from  Bethany. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

SUMMARY   PROOF   OF   THE   GENUINENESS   OF 
THE   GOSPEL. 


The  crucial 
question. 


THE  ground  is  now  sufficiently  clear  for  us  to  put 
to  ourselves  definitely  the  crucial  questions  by 
which  the  result  of  our  enquiry  must  be  determined. 
Was  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  a  Jew  ?  Was 
he  a  Jew  of  Palestine  ?  Was  he  a  member  of  the 
original  Christian  circle  ?  Was  he  an  eye-witness  .-' 
Was  he  the  son  of  Zebedee^.-*  Incidentally  the 
evidence  on  all  these  points  has  been  already  discussed, 


*  The  same  questions  are  asked, 
and  opposite  answers  given,  by  Dr. 
Scholten  {Ev.  Joh.  pp.  376-.^99, 
406-414).  This  will  not  however 
mislead  any  one  who  examines  the 
process  by  which  Dr.  Scholten 
reaches  his  conclusions.  Most  of 
the  points,  especially  the  Paschal 
controversy,  on  which  great  stress 
is  laid,  have  been  discussed  above. 
A  specimen  of  the  reasoning 
followed  may  be  seen  in  the  three 
pages  (408 -4 10)  which  are  devoted 
to  the  Johannean  topography:  (i) 
the  instances  in  which  the  accuracy 
of  the  Evangelist  is  authenticated 
beyond  question  are  ignored;  (2) 
Wvherever  the  authentication  (from 
the  scanty  sources  accessible)   is 


imperfect,  it  is  at  once  assumed 
that  the  Evangelist  is  wrong,  how- 
ever precise  and  credible  his  state- 
ment may  be.  With  regard  to  the 
language  and  style  and  the  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  we 
must  set  against  Dr.  Scholten,  who . 
is  not  specially  a  Hebraist,  the  evi- 
dence of  those  who  are  (see  pp.  28, 
29,  above,  and  add  Bleek,  Ehil.  p. 
210,  Westcott,  Intr.  2S7,  2SS).  The 
multitudinous  instances  of  acquaint- 
ance with  Jewish  ideas  and 
customs  pass  unnoticed.  Of  the 
few  objections  brought  (p.  407  ad 
fin.)  only  one  ('out  of  Galilee 
Cometh  no  prophet ')  has  any  kind 
of  validity. 


CEyUINENF.SS  OF    THE   GOSPEL. 


287 


and  I  will  not  weary  the  reader  by  repeating  it  in 
detail ;  but  in  order  that  he  may  be  able  clearly  to 
appreciate  its  weight,  it  is  now  presented  in  a  summary 
form  under  each  of  the  several  heads  to  which  it 
belongs. 

I,  The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  a  Jew, 
and  a  Jew  of  Palestine.  This  appears  from  his  in- 
timate acquaintance — 

(a)  With  JcivisJi  ideas.  Of  these  the  most  prominent 
is  the  Messianic  idea,  of  which  we  find  a  singularly 
clear  and  accurate  apprehension.  Cf.  i.  19-28,  45,  46, 
49j  51 ;  iv.  25  (the  Samaritan  Messiah) ;  vi.  14,  15  ;  vii. 
26,  27,  31,  40-42,  52;    xii.  13,  34;  xix.  15,  21. 

Besides  this,  we  notice — baptism,  i,  25  ;  iii.  22,  23  ; 
iv.  2  ;  purification,  purifying,  defilement,  ii.  6 ;  iii.  25  ; 
xi.  55  ;  xviii.  28  ;  xix.  31  ;  relation  of  Jews  to  Sama- 
ritans, iv.  9,  20,  22;  viii.  48  ;  ad  hoDLincni  arguments 
couched  in  Rabbinical  form,  vii.  22,  23  (circumcision 
on  Sabbath);  viii.  17,  18  (testimony  of  two  men); 
X.  34  ('  I  said  ye  are  gods').  Curreiit  Rabbinical 
and  popular  notions,  besides  those  with  reference 
to  the  Messiah — iv.  27  (conversation  with  a  woman)  ; 
vii.  15  (Rabbinical  schools — 'how  knoweth  this  man 
letters  } ') ;  ix.  2,  3  (connection  of  sin  with  bodily 
affliction);  ix.  16  ('can  a  sinner  do  such  miracles?'); 
ix.  28  (Moses'  disciples)  ;  viii.  52,  53  (Abraham  and 
the  prophets)  ;  viii.  57,  ix.  23  (Jewish  division  of  age). 

(/8)  With  the  Jewish  Feasts,  which  are  used  as 
landmarks  : — ii.  13,  23  (Passover) ;  v.  i  ('a  feast  of  the 
Jews ') ;  vi.  4  (Passover) ;  vii.  2  (Feast  of  Tabernacles)  ; 
vii.  37  ('The  last  day,  the  great  day') ;  x.  22  (Dedi- 
cation) ;  xiii.  I,  etc.,  xviii.  28  (Passover)  ;  xix.  31,  42 
(the  preparation,  the  high  day). 


The  author 
a  Palestinian 
Jew. 


SUMMARY  PROOF  OF    THE 


[chap. 


(y)  With  JezvisJi  topography  We  notice  in  con- 
nection with  many  of  the  places  mentioned  some 
exact  specification  : — i.  44  (Bethsaida,  native  place  of 
Philip,  Peter,  and  Andrew) ;  i.  28  (Bethany,  beyond 
Jordan=:Tell  Anihje?  cf.  p.  45  n.  above)^ ;  i.  46 
(Nazareth,  its  local  reputation) ;  ii.  i,  xxi.  2  (Cana, 
distinguished  as  'of  Galilee,'  the  native  place  of 
Nathanael  =  Kana  el  Jelil)  ;  iii.  23  (Aenon,  'near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there,' =  Sheikh 
Salim) ;  iv.  5  (Sychar,  '  a  city  of  Samaria,  near  to  the 
parcel  of  ground  that  Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph. 
Now  Jacob's  well  was  there ' ;  either  a  vernacular 
name  for  Sichem  or  =  Askar:  cf.  p.  93  above;) 
V.  2  (Bethesda,  '  a  pool  by  the  sheep  gate,  having 
five  porches,'  mentioned  by  Eusebius  and  Bordeaux 
Pilgrim,  A.D,  '>)y:i)  \  viii.  20  (The  Treasury  in  the 
Temple,  cf.  Mark  xii.  41) ;  ix,  7  (Siloam,  '  a  pool,  which 
is  by  interpretation  Sent ';  '  missio  aquarum,'  Meyer  : 
cf.  Neh.  iii.  15);  x.  23  (Solomon's  porch  or  'cloister,' 
Jos.  Ant.  XX.  9.  7) ;  x.  40  ('  the  place  where  John  first 
baptized');  xx.  18  (Bethany,  fifteen  furlongs  from 
Jerusalem) ;  xi.  54  (Ephraim,  near  to  the  wilderness, 
cf.  190);  xviii.  1  (the  brook  Cedron,  cf.  p.  240);  xix.  13 
(the  place  that  is  called  the  Pavement,  but  in  the 
Hebrew  Gabbatha) ;  xix.  17  (the  place  of  a  skull,  which 
is  called  in  the  Hebrew  Golgotha — near  this  is  the 


1  These  brief  notes  are  added  in 
order  that  the  reader  may  be  re- 
minded of  the  extent  to  which  the 
Johannean  topography  can  be 
authenticated.  It  is  strange  that 
this  authentication  should  be  most 
complete  where  the  landmarks  had 
been  most  effaced — in  regard  to 
JerusalemandtheTemple.  Nothing 


more  is  needed  to  prove  that  the 
Gospel  was  written  by  one  who 
was  intimate  with  Jerusalem  as  it 
was  before  the  year  70  a.d.  Allu- 
sions to  the  Temple  services  occur, 
e.g.,  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement, 
§§  40,  41,  but  none  to  its  archi- 
tectural plan  and  history  so  precise 
as  these  in  St.  John. 


XIX.] 


GENUINENESS  OF    THE    GOSPEL. 


289 


Sepulchre,  xix.  42),  The  passage  ii,  13-16,  gives  an 
accurate  description  of  the  state  of  the  temple  ;  and 
ii.  20,  of  its  history. 

(8)  We  may  notice,  in  addition  to  these  marks  of 
Jewish  origin,  the  philological  evidence  derived 
from  the  language  and  style  in  which  the  Gospel  is 
written  (cf.  pp.  28,  29).  I  extract  from  M.  Wittichen 
a  few  instances  ^  of  Hebraistic  zvords  and  phrases  : 
(TKavha\L((iv  (xvi.  l),  yiviaQai  Oavarov  (viii.  52),  (fiayelv  to 
T7a(Txa  (xviii.  28),  v\{/w6i]vai  e/c  TT/syTjs  (xii.  32),  evrevdev  koI 
h'Tivdev  (xix.  18),  (T(ppayiC€Li^,  'approve'  (iii.  33),  a-rjixda 
Koi  repaTa  (iv.  48),  6  apx^cav  tov  k6(T[xov  (rabb.  xii.  19)5  a^tos 
iva  (i.  27),  TtepfnaTeTv  trop.  (viii.  1 2).  Figures  of  spcecJi: 
the  woman  in  travail,  xvi.  21  (cf.  Is.  xxi.  3,  Hos.  xiii. 
13);  the  good  and  the  bad  Shepherd,  x.  i  foil.  (cf. 
Ezek.  xxxiv.  7,  Jer.  ii.  8,  Zech.  xi.  5) ;  living  water,  iv.  10 
(cf.  Ecclesiasticus  xv.  3,  Baruch  iii.  12);  the  lamp, 
Ay'xi'o?,  V.  35  (2  Sam.  xxi.  17,  Ecclesiasticus  xlviii.  i). 
Speeial  theological  terms :  aap^  koI  -nvevna  (iii.  6),  kocthos 
oiiTO<i  (viii.  23),  </)(5s  Kol  GKoria  (xii.  35  foil.),  ^aaiKda  0eoS 
(iii.  3  foil.),  foor;,  davaTo<i  (iii.  36,  viii.  51),  opyi]  and  /cpiVis 
(iii.  18  foil.,  36),  oiKatoavvr]  (xvi.  8),  ayia(eiv  (xvii.  19), 
77ar7jp  in  ethical  sense  (viii.  41  foil.).  I  suspect  that 
this  list  might  be  readily  extended. 

(e)  An  equally  convincing  argument  is  drawn  from 
the  use  which  the  author  makes  of  the  Old  Testament. 
He  quotes  it  almost  as  often  in  proportion  to  the 
length  of  the  Gospel  as  the  most  Jewish  of  the 
Evangelists,  the  editor  of  our  present  St.  Matthew. 
He  appears  to  be  equally  familiar  with  the  Hebrew 


'  Approved  by  Dr.  Holtzmann,     S.B.L.  iii.  336.    The  subject  is  dis- 
ait.    '  Johannes    der    Apostel  '    in     cussedmorefullyonpp.3S,29above. 

U 


290 


SUMMARY  PROOF  OF  THE 


[chap. 


A  contem- 
porary. 


text  and  the  Lxx.  Two  of  the  quotations,  xiii, 
i8  =  Ps.  xli.  9,  xix.  37=:Zech.  xii.  10,  agree  with 
the  former  and  not  with  the  latter  (Westcott,  p. 
287);  also  xii.  40  =  Is,  vii.  9,  10  (according  to  Bleek, 
p.  210). 

All  these  points  taken  together  seem  to  afford 
convincing  proof  that  the  author  was  a  native  of 
Palestine. 

II.  But  there  are  some  among  them  that  tend  also 
to  give  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  second  great 
question — Was  he  a  contemporary  of  our  Lord  and  a 
member  of  the  original  Christian  circle  .-*  There  is  one 
point  especially  which  seems  to  decide  this;  that  is, 
the  Avay  in  which  the  conflict  is  described  between  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  conception  of  the  Messiah.  Only 
the  first  generation  of  Christians  could  represent  this 
accurately.  The  breach  between  the  two  conceptions 
was  soon  so  wide  that  it  became  impossible  for  the 
writer  to  pass  from  the  one  to  the  other  as  easily 
and  readily  as  the  fourth  Evangelist  has  done.  The 
Jewish  conception  of  the  Messianic  reign  was  that  of  a 
political  theocracy,  in  which  Jerusalem  was  to  be 
the  capital  and  mistress  of  the  world,  and  all  nations 
were  to  flow  to  it.  We  see  from  all  the  earliest  and 
most  authentic  documents  of  Christianity  how  long 
the  disciples  themselves  clung  to  this  idea,  and  what  a 
fruitful  cause  of  misunderstanding  it  was  among  the 
Jews  :  it  was  in  fact  the  one  main  cause  of  their 
rejecting  the  true  Messiah.  But  the  recollection  of 
this  can  only  have  lasted  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
Christian  community  up  to  the  taking  of  Jerusalem. 
That  event  cut  a  sharp  line  between  its  past  and  its 
future.      All  hope  and  expectation  of  a  political  reign 


XIX.]  GENUINENESS   OF    THE    GOSPEL.  291 


was  at  once  and  for  ever  abandoned,  and  wc  cannot 
doubt    that  it   soon   came  to  be  forgotten  that  such 
a  hope  had  ever  existed.      The    only   persons    who 
retained  the  memory  of  it  must  have  been  those  who  had 
themselves  assisted  at  the  foundation  of  Christianity. 
And    it  is   proved,    I    think  we   may  say  almost  to 
demonstration,  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
was  one  of  these.       Nathanael  hails  our  Lord  as  the 
King  of  Israel.     After  the  miracle  of  the  multiplica- 
tion of  the  loaves  the  multitudes  would  fain  take  Him 
by  force  and  make  Him  king.      At  the  triumphant 
entry  they  salute  Him  as  the  King  of  Israel.       He  is 
brought  before  Pilate  as  a  leader  of  sedition.    And  the 
Jews  make  loud  professions  of  their  loyalty  to  Caesar 
in  order  that  they  may  not  be  suspected  of  abetting 
Him.      They  remonstrate  against  the  apparent  recog- 
nition of  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah  in  the  title  upon 
the  Cross.       But  it  is  not  only  in  this  respect ;  the 
Evangelist  is  quite  as  familiar  with  other  aspects  of 
the    popular    idea.     Could    the    Christ    come    from 
Nazareth  ?  or  from  Galilee  .-'      Was  He  not  to  be  born 
in  Bethlehem,  David's  city .''     Was  not  the  Christ  to 
come  suddenly  out  of  obscurity .-'      Was  He  not  to 
abide   for   ever  ?     When   He    came    He   was   to   do 
miracles,  but  could   He  do  more  than  these  'which 
this  man  hath  done  ? '     Only  at  one  time  and  to  one 
generation  of  men  was  such  easy  and  precise  delinea- 
tion possible,  and  that  to  those  who  had  grown  up  in 
the    midst  of  this   popular   idea   and   these  popular 
expectations  themselves,  and  had  heard   them   con- 
stantly canvassed  all  about  them.     Jewish  customs  in 
the  general  sense  were  permanent,  and  a  Jew  in  the 
second  century  might  be  as  well  acquainted  with  them 

U    2 


292 


SUMMARY  PROOF    OF   THE 


[chap. 


as  a  Jew  in  the  first ;  but  the  relation  of  a  CJiristian  to 
this  particular  set  of  Jewish  ideas  rapidly  and  totally 
changed,  so  as  to  be  quite  beyond  the  power  of  a 
later  age  to  revive. 

Of  similar  importance  and  bearing  is  the  knowledge 
which  the  Evangelist  displays  of  the  state  and  condi- 
tion of  the  temple,  the  buyers  and  sellers  in  its  courts, 
the  particular  articles  in  which  they  trafficked,  the 
position  of  the  treasury  and  of  Solomon's  porch — nay, 
of  the  precise  point  of  time  at  which  the  events 
recorded  happened  from  the  date  at  which  the  restora- 
tion of  the  temple  commenced — '  Forty  and  six  years 
was  this  temple  in  building.'  I  repeat  that  I  am 
wholly  unable  to  conceive  this  statement  to  be  the 
work  of  a  forger.  With  our  modern  habits  of  research 
and  careful  reproduction  of  past  ages  such  a  thing 
might  have  been  credible,  but  at  that  time  and  in  that 
condition  of  literature  it  is  not.  A  miracle  (taken 
with  the  whole  class  of  circumstances  to  which 
miracles  belong)  would  be  less  surprising,  because 
in  such  a  phenomenon  there  would  be  a  miracle  with- 
out an  adequate  cause. 

These  considerations  are  confirmed  when  we  come 
to  observe  the  fondness  of  the  Evangelist  for  throwing 
himself  back  into  the  position  of  the  original  disciples, 
and  repeating  their  reflections  or  comments,  these 
being  such  as,  though  appropriate  at  the  time,  would 
not  be  likely  to  have  occurred  to  one  who  had  not 
been  himself  a  disciple.  Cf.  ii.  11,  17,  22,  iv.  27,  vi.  60, 
vii.  39,  xii.  6,  16,  33,  xiii.  28,  29  (cf.  xiii.  7),  xx.  9, 
20,  xxi.  12,  23. 

In  connection  with  this  is  the  distinct  character- 
ization   of    many    of    the    disciples,    especially   the 


XIX.] 


GE.YUINENESS  OF    THE    GOSPEL. 


293 


beloved  disciple,  Peter,  Thomas,  Philip,  Judas  Is- 
cariot. 

We  may  notice  too  that  the  Apostle  throws  himself 
with  almost  equal  facility  into  the  feelings,  doubts, 
difficulties,  plots,  hostility,  the  conflicting  motives  and 
the  overt  action  of  the  Jew^s.  Cf.  vii.  11-13,  40-53, 
ix.  8,  I2,x.  19-21,41,  xi.  47-53,  xii.  9-11,  xviii.  30,31, 
xix.  7,  12,  15. 

An  incidental  confirmation  is  afforded  by  the  pecu- 
liar familiarity  which  the  Evangelist  show^s  with  the 
Baptist  and  all  that  concerned  him,  justifying  the 
supposition  of  M.  Renan  and  others  that  he  was  once 
numbered  among  the  Baptist's  disciples.  This  comes 
out  indeed  in  the  early  chapters,  but  especially  in  that 
remarkable  periphrasis  in  x.  40,  '  And  he  went  away 
again  beyond  Jordan  into  the  place  where  John  at 
first  baptized:  and  there  abode ; '  along  with  what 
follows,  '  And  many  resorted  to  him  and  said,  John 
did  no  miracle  ;  but  all  things  that  John  spake  of  this 
man  were  true.'  The  curious  contrast,  'John  did  no 
miracle,'  and  the  easy  natural  way  in  which  the  whole 
passage  is  introduced  show  that  it  is  not  premedi- 
tated. 

III.  Thus  we  are  prepared  for  that  by  which  the 
previous  arguments  are  riveted,  as  it  were,  together — 
The  Gospel  is  the  work  of  an  eye-witness.  This  is 
proved  by  the  number  of  minute  and  precise  details 
which  none  but  an  eye-witness  would  have  preserved. 

These  are: — 

(a)  Notes  of  time,  days,  i.  29-35,  43,  ii.  i,  13,  iv.  40, 
xi.  6,  39,  xii.  I  ;  hotirs,  i.  39  (tenth),  iv.  6  (sixth),  iv.  52 
(seventh),  xix.  14  (sixth).  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in 
each  case  the  time  is  given  approximately,  (opa  ijv  is 


294 


SUMMARY  PROOF    OF    THE 


[chap. 


€KT77.  This  is  characteristic  of  a  genuine  eye-witness, 
just  as  the  more  precise  assertion  would  be  of  a 
forger.  Feasts,  ii,  13,  23,  v.  i,  vi.  4,  vii.  2,  x.  22,  xiii.  i. 
Years,  the  date  forty-six  years  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  temple  restoration,  ii.  20  ;  the  thirty-eight 
years  during  which  the  cripple  at  the  porch  of  Beth- 
esda  had  suffered  from  his  infirmity,  v.  35. 

(/3)  Among  the  7iotes  of  place  already  mentioned 
some  show  signs  of  an  eye-witness,  e.g.  iii.  23,  iv.  5,  6, 
V.  2,  X.  23,  X.  40. 

(y)  The  particular  mention  of  persons.  Where  the 
other  Evangelists  speak  generally  of  the  '  disciples ' 
or  'one  of  the  disciples,'  St.  John  almost  invariably 
singles  out  the  person,  and  frequently  with  some  indi- 
vidualizing trait  of  incident  or  character.  Cf.  i.  35-5^5 
the  five  Apostles;  iii.  i,  Nicodemus ;  vi.  5,  PhiHp ; 
vi.  8,  Andrew ;  vi.  6"^  foil,  Peter;  vii.  3,  5,  the  Lord's 
brethren  ;  xi.  i  foil.,  Mary  and  Martha ;  xi.  16, 
Thomas  ;  xi.  49,  Caiaphas  ;  xii.  2,  3,  Mary ;  xii.  4,  7, 
Judas  Iscariot;  xiii.  6  foil,  Peter,  23,  26,  Peter,  the 
beloved  disciple,  and  Judas,  36,  Peter  ;  xiv.  5,  Thomas, 
8,  Philip,  22,  Judas ;  xviii.  10,  Peter  and  Malchus, 
15  foil.,  Peter  and  the  beloved  disciple,  Annas 
and  Caiaphas ;  xix.  25,  the  women  at  the  Cross, 
and  the  beloved  disciple,  38,  39,  Joseph  and  Nic- 
odemus ;  xxi.  1  foil.,  Mary  Magdalene,  Peter  and 
the  beloved  disciple ;  xx.  24,  Thomas  ;  xxi.  2,  the 
seven  disciples,  15  foil,  Peter  and  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple. 

(8)  Lastly,  a  certain  mimite  picturesqiieness  and  ac- 
curacy of  description  which  is  peculiarly  characteristic 
of  an  eye-witness  (points  which  have  already  been 
mentioned  under  the  head  of  '  time,'  '  place,'  '  customs,' 


XIX.] 


GENUINENESS  OF   THE    GOSPEL. 


295 


'  persons,'  '  reflections,'  are  not  repeated,  though 
they  have  the  same  bearing),  Cf.  ii.  13-17,  iv.  6,  20, 
28,  39,  vi.  7,  9,  10,  19,  22,  23,  vii.  10,  27,  37,  chapters 
ix.  and  xi.  generally,  xii.  2,  3,  5,  13,  xiii.  4,  5,  12, 
23,  25,  xviii.  I,  3,  10,  13,  15-18,  25,  27,  28,  xix. 
4,  5>  8,  9,  13,  14,  20,  23,  39,  XX.  4,  7,  II,  15,  16, 
xxi.  8,  II,  20. 

(e)  We  must  add  to  these  the  implied  assertion  of 
i.  14,  16  (cf.  I  John  i.  i  foil.)  and  the  express  assertion 
of  xix.  35,  xxi.  14,  in  which  the  Evangelist  himself 
claims  to  have  been  an  eye-witness. 

These  phenomena  admit  of  only  two  explanations. 
If  they  are  not  the  work  of  an  eye-witness  they  imply 
an  amount  of  genius,  remarkable  as  judged  by  any 
standard,  and  wholly  without  parallel  as  compared 
with  the  other  literature  of  late  Judaism  and  early 
Christianity.  But  even  this  hypothesis  will  not  ac- 
count for  the  whole  of  the  phenomena.  Shakespeare 
himself,  if  he  had  been  born  after  the  taking  of  Je- 
rusalem, could  not  have  written  the  fourth  Gospel  as 
it  is.  He  might  have  produced  the  touches  of  an 
eye-witness, — though  a  Shakespeare  would  not  at  the 
same  time  have  written  the  Johannean  discourses. 
But  there  are  points  where  the  fiction  must  have  in- 
evitably betrayed  itself,  i.e.,  such  as  the  allusions  to  the 
Jewish  Messianic  idea  and  its  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian. '  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  V 
'Shall  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee.^'  'Hath  not  the 
Scripture  said  that  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of 
David,  and  out  of  the  town  of  Bethlehem  where 
David  was.?'  'We  have  heard  out  of  the  law  that 
Christ  abideth  for  ever.'  '  Howbeit  we  know  this 
man  whence  he  is :  but  when  Christ  cometh  no  man 


296 


SUMMARY  PROOF  OF  THE 


[chap. 


The  Apostle 
St.  John. 


knoweth  whence  he  is.'  'We  are  Moses'  disciples.' 
'Thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  devil.'  'Why 
baptizest  thou  then  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,  neither 
Elias,  neither  the  prophet."^'  'Forty  and  six  years  was 
this  temple  in  building.'  '  He  departed  to  the  place 
where  John  at  first  baptized.'  These  are  touches  that 
would  not  have  been  given  even  by  a  Shakespeare,  and 
that  prove,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  beyond  possi- 
bility of  question,  that  the  hypothesis  of  an  actual 
eye-witness  is  the  ofily  tenable  one. 

IV.  But  if  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  an 
eye-witness  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  was  also 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  St.  John.  He  is  identified  in 
ch.  xxi.  directly  with  the  beloved  disciple.  But  the 
beloved  disciple  was  one  of  the  most  prominent 
among  the  Apostles,  and  in  particular  a  close  com- 
panion of  Peter,  cf.  xiii.  23,  24,  xviii.  15,  16,  xx.  2-10, 
xxi.  20,  21.  This  tallies  exactly  with  the  position  as- 
signed to  St.  John  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  in 
the  Acts  (iii.  i),  and  is  confirmed  by  the  ecclesiastical 
tradition. 

The  arguments  which  have  been  drawn  from  the 
Synoptists  against  the  identification  of  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  with  the  Son  of  Zebedee,  proceed 
from  a  hasty  and  imperfect  psychology.  There  is 
nothing  to  prevent  the  '  Son  of  Thunder '  from  being 
also  the  'Apostle  of  Love,' but  rather  strong  reason  to 
see  in  them  the  same  person.  Intensity  of  nature  is 
the  common  ground  in  which  strong  affection  meets 
with  strong  antipathies.  Dante  is  another  St.  John, 
but  embittered  by  the  world's  opposition  instead  of 
being  purified  by  the  spirit  of  Christ.  The  only  trait 
that  is  wanting  in  the  Evangelist  that  had  been  pre- 


XIX.] 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE   GOSPEL. 


sent  "in  the  youthful  Apostle  is  a  certain  impetu- 
osity— not  indeed  an  impetuosity  Hke  St.  Peter's, 
but  of  finer  tone  and  more  surbordinate  to  the 
main  bent  of  his  character.  By  the  time  the  Apostle 
came  to  write  the  Gospel  it  had  been  further  soft- 
ened by  age. 


297 


CHAPTER    XX. 

THE   HYPOTHESIS   OF   MEDIATE  JOHANNEAN 
AUTHORSHIP,   AND   CONCLUSION. 


The  hypo- 
thesis of 
mediate 
Johannean 
authorship. 


IF  the  foregoing  considerations  prove  anything,  they 
prove  that  the  Gospel  proceeds  at  first-hand  from 
the  Apostle  St.  John  himself.  And  the  other  hypo- 
thesis, that  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  Apostle 
mediately,  i.e.  to  a  disciple  in  possession  of  the  Johan- 
nean tradition,  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  serves  to 
confuse  and  neutralize  the  clear  indications  that 
determine  our  conclusion.  '  All  the  grounds,'  says  Dr. 
Weizsacker,  '  which  speak  for  the  apostolic  origin  of 
the  Gospel  remain  untouched  when  it  is  assumed  that 
the  Johannean  tradition  was  strictly  followed  in  its 
composition^'  ?  If  the  intervention  of  second  persons 
is  reduced  to  merely  mechanical  assistance  in  the 
transcription  of  the  Gospel  -,  then  this  may  be  so, 
but  not  otherwise.  The  marks  of  an  eye-witness  and 
contemporary  are  either  genuine  and  original,  or  else 
they  are  pure  fiction,  and  these  marks  are  scattered 
so  promiscuously  over  the  whole  surface  of  the  Gospel 
that  it  is  a  vain  attempt  to  separate  them.     They  will 

'  Untersnchungen,  p.  298.  "  As  apparently  by  Ewald, 

Johann.  Schriften,  p.  50. 


MEDIATE  JOHANNEAN  AUTHORSHIP. 


■99 


be  found  in  every  chapter  and  in  every  section  of  the 
narrative  from  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
end.  Any  one  may  see  this  who  will  follow  carefully 
the  course  of  the  preceding  investigation,  or  who  will 
cast  a  glance  over  the  summary  lists  of  instances 
collected  in  the  last  chapter. 

Not  only  so,  the  hypothesis  of  preserved  traditions 
is  seen  to  be  in  itself  untenable.  What  tradition  would 
have  preserved  such  objectless  fragments  as  i.  40, 
'  They  came  and  saw  where  He  dwelt,  and  abode  with 
Him  that  day';  ii.  12,  'After  this  He  went  down  to 
Capernaum,  He  and  His  mother,  and  His  brethren, 
and  His  disciples,  and  they  continued  there  not  many 
days' ;  iii.  23,  '  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Aenon, 
near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there  : 
and  they  came  and  were  baptized.  .  .  .  Then  there 
arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and 
the  Jews,  about  purifying' — (we  hear  nothing  further 
about  this  dispute) ;  vi.  23,  '  Howbeit  there  came  other 
boats  from  Tiberias ; '  x.  40,  'He  went  away  again 
beyond  Jordan,  unto  the  place  where  John  at  the  first 
baptized  ;  and  there  He  abode' ;  xi.  54,  'Jesus  there- 
fore went  thence  into  a  country  near  to  the  wilderness, 
into  a  city  called  Ephraim,  and  there  continued  with 
His  disciples' .''  Scraps  of  history  like  these  have  none 
of  the  appearance  of  invention,  but  they  are  just  as 
little  the  kind  of  matter  that  is  handed  down  to  us  by 
tradition.  We  see  nothing  like  them  in  the  true 
products  of  tradition,  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Such 
isolated  notices,  if  they  had  fallen  from  the  lips  of  an 
Apostle,  no  disciple  would  have  cared  either  to  commit 
to  memory  or  to  take  down  in  writing  ;  he  would  be 
intent  upon  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  of  the  history 


300  THE  HYPOTHESIS  OF  [chap. 


he  would  only  retain  so  much  as  had  a  deeper  signi- 
ficance in  itself,  or  was  the  necessary  framework  to 
anecdote  or  discourse.  The  same  again  holds  in 
regard  to  the  numerous  '  reflections,'  many  of  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  would  have  had  no  interest  for  the 
second  and  third  generation  of  Christians,  The  very 
ease  with  which  a  passage  like  that  of  the  '  woman 
taken  in  adultery,'  allows  itself  to  be  eliminated,  is 
sufficient  proof  that  the  same  process  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel.  A  single  mind  is  dominant 
all  through.  Whether  we  look  at  style  or  matter,  it  is 
the  product '  to  the  very  marrow'  of  one  and  the  same 
individuality.  It  is  an  organic  whole,  and  will  no 
more  bear  to  be  dismembered  than  a  living  creature. 

But  the  reasons  which  have  led  to  such  dismember- 
ment are  quite  insufficient.  No  doubt  the  chief  of 
them  has  been  the  nature  of  the  discourses.  M. 
Renan  dismisses  these  too  lightly  for  the  interests  of 
science.  And  Dr.  Weizsacker,  I  cannot  but  think, 
has  formed  a  mistaken  theory  as  to  their  composition. 
He  appears  to  regard  them  as  conscious  developments 
of  Synoptic  matter  \  But  to  me  it  is  far  more  prob- 
able that  they  represent  only  the  natural,  spontaneous, 
imconscio7is  development  that  the  original  elements  of 
fact  have  undergone  in  the  Apostle's  mind.  It  can- 
not, I  think,  be  denied  that  the  discourses  are  to  a 
certain  extent  unauthentic,  but  this  is  rather  in  form 
and  disposition  than  in  matter  and  substance.  Our 
analysis  has  detected  nothing  that  could  not  have 
proceeded  from  an  Apostle,  even  from  an  Apostle  who, 
like  St.  John,  had  lain  upon  the  bosom  of  the  Lord. 

1  p.  2  79  foil. 


XX.]  MEDIATE  yOHANNEAN  AUTHORSIIir. 


301 


The  relation  to  the  Synoptic  narrative  is  similar.  I 
cannot  think  that  it  proceeded  from  conscious  manipu- 
lation of  the  Synoptic  tradition  or  from  the  painful 
piecing  together  of  discordant  records.  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  the  Evangelist  had  seen  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  that  in  their  present  form.  But  it  can,  I 
think,  as  little  be  doubted  that  he  did  not  write  with 
them  actually  before  him.  He  writes  with  a  plan  and 
purpose  of  his  own,  partly  perhaps  with  a  view  to 
supplement  them,  but  that  not  in  a  petty  or  mecha- 
nical way.  And  when  he  presents  a  resemblance  to 
them  upon  points  of  detail,  it  is  because  their  state- 
ments fall  in  with  his  own  recollections,  recollections 
which  they  may  have  helped  to  revive,  but  which  they 
did  not  in  the  first  instance  create.  The  Evangelist 
draws  out  of  his  treasure  things  old  as  well  as  new, 
but  the  treasure  from  which  he  draws  is  his  own. 

These  are  really  the  two  most  important  grounds  ^ 
which  have  led  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  mediate  author- 
ship ;  but  neither  do  they  seem  to  require  it,  nor  are 
the  facts  explained  by  it  when  it  is  there.  The  hy- 
pothesis raises  more  difficulties  than  it  removes.  And 
the  same  difficulties  are  equally  removed  by  taking 
into  account  the  play  of  ordinary  psychological  laws. 

If  we  fix  our  attention  firmly  upon  the  history  of 
the  Apostle,  and  then  look  from  that  to  the  Gospel, 
we  shall  see  the   one   reflected    in   the   other.     The 


'  Cf.  Weizsiicker,  pp.  298-300. 
The  whole  theory  of  mediate  au- 
thorship is  as  yet  represented  by 
some  five  pages  of  Dr.  Weizsiicker's 
work,  and  one  of  M.  Kenan's :  it 
would  therefore  be  disproportionate 
to  contest  it  at  greater  length ;  but  I 


should  be  quite  prepared  to  do  so  if 
necessary.  It  would  simplify  the 
issue,  if  Dr.  Weizsiicker  would 
point  out  definitely  what  portions 
of  the  Gospel  he  thinks  non-Jo- 
hannean. 


The  Gospel 
reflects  the 
history  of 
the  Apostle. 


302 


THE  HYPOTHESIS  OF 


[chap. 


Gospel  contains,  in  outline  at  least,  the  autobiography 
of  its  author.  It  shows  us  first  the  youthful  Jew 
penetrated  with  the  Messianic  hopes  of  his  people, 
and  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  a  society  in  which 
they  were  eagerly  canvassed,  attaching  himself  to  the 
Baptist,  but  leaving  his  first  master  for  a  second, 
whom  he  joined  to  leave  no  more.  We  see  him 
during  those  three  years  receiving  an  indelible  im- 
pression, in  which  the  motions  of  the  intellect  were 
suspended  by  the  absorbing  power  of  love  and  de- 
votion. When  his  Lord  was  taken  away,  we  see  him 
still  in  the  midst  of  Jewish  influences  collecting  and 
digesting  his  memories  of  the  past ;  but,  as  time  wore 
on,  suffering  himself  to  move  with  it,  and  linking  the 
train  of  his  associations  to  the  experiences  of  his  own 
life  and  the  history  of  the  Church  ;  and  finally,  upon 
finding  himself  thrown  into  a  diff'erent  sphere,  assimi- 
lating this  too  with  his  former  consciousness.  Thus 
w^hen  the  Apostle  came  to  pour  forth  the  accumulated 
fruit  of  his  life  and  reflection  upon  the  world,  he  pre- 
sents indeed  a  w^hole  that  is  complex  because  of  the 
variety  of  the  experiences  deposited  in  it,  and  yet  is 
organically  knit  and  bound  together,  and  derives  its 
essential  features,  not  from  the  fluctuating  elements 
of  individual  growth  and  expansion,  but  from  the 
permanent  basis  of  objective  fact.  The  change  is  not 
in  the  subject  matter,  but  in  the  relation  of  the  Evan- 
gelist to  it.  He  has  looked  at  it  as  if  from  different 
points  of  view,  and  therefore  shows  it  in  different 
lights  and  in  clearer  relief. 

Because  such  an  individuality  and  such  a  history  is 
rare,  it  is  not  therefore  to  be  rejected  as  incredible.  A 
rare  and  complex  cause  must  be  assumed  to  account 


t 


XX.] 


MEDIATE  yOHANXEAN  AUTHORSHIP. 


303 


for  rare  and  complex  effects.  And  in  the  whole  range 
of  literature  there  is  not  a  work  that  presents  such 
var}'ing  and  many-sided  phenomena  as  the  fourth 
Gospel.  The  whole  of  these  must  be  taken  in,  and 
not  a  part  of  them.  It  is  useless  to  account  for  the 
unauthentic  elements,  and  not  for  that  far  larger  pro- 
portion that  is  authentic.  It  is  useless  to  insist  on 
the  marks  of  late  composition,  where  the  traces  of  a 
contemporary  and  an  eye-witness  abound.  It  is  use- 
less to  point  to  the  culture  of  a  Greek,  when  beneath 
it  there  lies  the  indisputable  stamp  and  character  of 
the  Jew.  And  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  vain 
to  cramp  that  which  lives  and  breathes  in  the  iron 
bands  of  an  a  priori  theory.  The  Apostle  is  a  man 
of  like  passions  with  ourselves,  more  chastened,  more 
tender,  more  clothed  with  the  spirit  of  his  Lord, 
more  intimate  with  the  world  of  the  Unseen,  and  yet 
not  supernaturally  withheld  or  withdrawn  from  the 
ordinary  laws  to  which  flesh  is  heir ;  maturing 
slowly  and  gradually,  drawing  upon  the  stores  of  his 
experience,  not  wholly  unforgetful,  liable  to  mistakes, 
unconsciously  giving  out  the  fruits  of  his  own  reflec- 
tions as  if  they  had  been  objective  facts, — an  Apostle, 
and  yet  a  man.  If  either  side  is  lost,  the  picture  is 
destroyed  ;  its  humanity  disappears  ;  and  a  mechani- 
cal structure  wanting  in  nature  and  vitality  is  set  up 
in  its  place.  I  can  as  little  think  of  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  as  a  forger  or  even  disciple  laboriously 
building  upon  other  men's  foundations,  as  see  in  him 
a  passive  organ  of  infallibility.  Both  views  equally 
fail  to  explain  the  facts  ;  and  by  the  facts  in  this  as 
in  all  cases  we  must  judge,  certain  that  in  the  end 
the  interests  of  truth   must  accord  with  them.      In 


304 


MEDIATE  yOHANNEAN  AUTHORSHIP. 


this  case  they  seem  to  give  a  clear  verdict.  The 
Gospel  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle,  the  son  of  Zebedee ; 
it  is  the  record  of  an  eye-witness  of  the  life  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  its  historical  character  is 
such  as  under  the  circumstances  might  be  expected 
— it  needs  no  adventitious  commendation  to  make  it 
higher. 


THE     END. 


INDEX. 


Acts,  composition  of  the,  77,  n. 

Adultery,  paragraph  of  the  wo- 
man taken  in,  151. 

Aenon  and  Salim,  85. 

Alexandrine  Philosophy,  15-17. 

Allegory  and  Parable,  167  foil. 

Angels,  appearance  of,  261. 

Apollinaris  on  the  Paschal  Con- 
troversy, 216. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  the,  38. 

B. 

Baptism,  the  rite  of,  31,  76,  84. 

—  associated  with  preaching  of 
repentance,  77,  78. 

Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  45. 

Bethesda,  104,  105. 

Biography,  relation  of  the  Apo- 
stle's to  his  Gospel,  46,  149, 
162,  234,  302. 

Burial,  Jewish  mode  of,  257. 

C. 

Chagiga,  eating  of  the,  203. 
Ghristolog)',  the  Johannean,  109, 
no,  176-178,  277. 

—  the  Synoptic,  281,  282. 
Chronicon  Paschalc,  208. 
Chronology,  116,  117  w,  151,  174, 

191. 
Controversy,   the    Paschal,    209 

foil. 
Crucifixion,  day  of  the,  201  foil. 

—  hour  of  the,  251. 

D. 

Dead,  raising  of  the,  186. 
Death,  verdict  of,  191. 


Dedication,  feast  of,  174. 

Denunciatory  passages,  charac- 
teristics of,  161. 

Digressions,  Johannean,  129,  153 
n,  230. 

Discourses,  the  Johannean,  69 
foil.,  275. 

—  difficult  transitions  and  ellipses 
in,  129,  154,  Tsr,  230. 

—  subjective  element  in,  73,  81, 

128,     129,    157,    161,    219,    221- 

223,  230,  231,  238. 
Dogmatic  character  and  object 

of  the  Gospel,   18,    118,  200, 

274,  277. 
Dove,  imagery  of  the,  32  «. 
Dualism,  237. 


Early  ministry  of  our  Lord, 
character  of,  49,  59,  77,  78. 

Election  and  Predestination,  doc- 
trine of,  175. 

Ephraim,  190. 

epyo,  113. 

Ethical  questions,  place  of  in  the 
Gospel,  220. 

Eucharist,  institution  of  the,  217, 
284. 

Eucharistic  reference  of  chapter 
vi,  136-139. 

Evangelist,  personality  of  the, 
163,  296. 

External  evidence,  3,  211,  213. 


Gabbatha,  249,  250. 
Golgotha,  252. 


3o6 


INDEX. 


Gnosis  and  Gnosticism,  relation 
of  the  Evangelist  to,  8  foil., 
114,  141,  179. 

—  the  Basilidian,  10. 

—  the  Ophitic,  1 1. 

—  the  Valentinian,  8,  9. 

H. 

History,  chronological  distribu- 
tion of  the,  103,  n. 
Hebraisms,  6  «,  29,  289. 

J. 

Jewish  Feasts,  excitable  condi- 
tion of  the  people  at,  241,  242. 

Jews,  intellectual  and  religious 
condition  of,  at  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  95  «,  131, 132,  199,  249. 

Jonah,  birthplace  of  in  Galilee, 
150. 

Judaean  ministry,  traces  of,  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  55-57, 
282. 

Judaism  and  Judaistic  Christi- 
anity, relation  of  the  Evange- 
list to,  173,  213,  279.- 

Judas,  143,  192,  219. 

K. 

Kingdom  of  Heaven,  conception 
of  the,  in  St.  John  and  in  St. 
Paul,  280. 


Language  and  style,  28,  29,  289. 
Laodicaea,  the  Church    of,  and 

the  Paschal  controversy,  211. 
Life,  spiritual  and  physical,  iii. 
Light,  origin  of  the  Johannean 

conception  of,  152,  153. 
Logos,  doctrine  of  the,  7  foil. 

—  influence  of,  upon  the  history, 
18-20,  277. 

—  the,  of  Philo,  15,  i6. 

Luke,  St.,  Gospel  according  to, 
58,  60,  249  n,  259,  265,  267, 

—  relation  of  St.  John  to,  100, 
187  ;/,  215,  243,  259,  262,  263, 
267. 


M. 

Mark,  St.,  Gospel  according  to, 
258,  n. 

—  priority  of,  ix,  60,  194. 

—  relation  of  St.  John  to,  122, 

193- 
Martha  and  Mary,  character  of, 

183-185. 
Matthew,  St.,  109. 

—  Gospel  according  to,  60,  258, 
267,  268. 

Memory,  tenacity  of  the  Jewish, 

223. 
Messiahs,  false,  171. 
Messianic  expectations  and  idea, 

the  Jewish,  35,  123,  124,  146, 

194,  287,  291. 

—  materialism  of  the,  131,  132. 
Miracles,  attitude  of  the  enquiry 

towards,  48,  284. 

—  historical  evidence  for  the 
reality  of,  48,  163,  180  foil. 

—  Johannean  conception  of,  as 
evidence,  112. 

—  process  of,  165. 

—  Rationalistic  interpretation  of, 
126. 

—  ]\L  Renan's  argument  against, 
271,  n. 

—  typical  value  of,  130,  166. 
Mysticism,  Christian,  134-136. 

N. 
Nisan  14,  astronomical  data  for 
determining,  117,  «. 

O. 

Old  Testament,  quotations  from 
the,  149,  289. 

P. 

Paraclete,  doctrine  of  the,  233- 

235. 

TTapacTKevri,  204, 

Paschal  controversy,  the,  209 
foil. 

Paul,  St.,  relation  of  the  Evan- 
gelist to,  12,  36,  37,  80,  81, 
156,  175,  207,  233,  278  foil. 


INDEX. 


307 


Peter,  St.,  142,  217,  260,  267, 
269. 

—  the  first  Epistle  of,  78,  «. 

—  relation  of  the  Evangelist  to, 
21,  88  «,  142,  296, 

Philo  and  the  Philonian  philo- 
sophy, 15-17,  152. 

Pihite,  247. 

Prc-existence,  doctrine  of,  237, 
279,  282. 

Purim,  feast  of,  103. 

R. 

Reflections  of  the  Evangelist,  52, 

149,  198,  292. 
Resurrection,  narratives  of  the, 

258,  259. 

—  reality  of  the,  271,  272. 


Sanhedrim,  the,  150,  188. 

Samaritan,  Samaritans,  88  foil., 
159. 

dap^  and  a-cona,  use  of  dis- 
tinguished, 137,  n. 

Selection,  principle  of  pursued  in 
the  Gospel,  118,  274. 

Siloam,  162. 

Sister  of  Mary,  the,  253. 

Symbolical  action,  216, 


Symbolism,  use  of  by  the  Apo- 
stolic writers  and  by  the  Jews, 
138-140. 

Synoptic  Gospels,  origin  of  in 
common  document,  ix.  i9,6o«. 

—  fragmentariness  of  the,  42  «, 
184,  n. 

Synoptists,  St.  John  and  the, 
passim. 

—  Johannean  narrative  not  con- 
structed out  of,  106  «,  112, 
193,  300,  301- 

T. 

Tabernacles,  feast  of,  149. 
Talmud,  the,  132  n,  223. 
Temple,  history  and  plan  of,  65, 

66,  288  «,  292. 
Text-criticism,   points    of,    104, 

151,  240,  244. 
Thomas,  St.,  183,  224,  264. 
Time,  mode  of  reckoning,  34  «, 

loi,  251. 
Topography,  the  Johannean,  288. 
Triplets,  system  of,  278. 
Tubingen   school,  the,  98,   189, 

209  foil. 

U. 

Universalism,the  Johannean,  1 7  2, 
173,  279,  280, 


Date  Due 

m 

i  ] 

•  •- 

%\i  5 

18 

<^^i^^^^M 

i 

<^ 

jWji^wwIf^W 

■ 

fi(fiipwfl'^ 

IWfJKfcafc,, 

$) 

